KAVITA SHARMA Vs. RAJINDRA PROPERTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The composite application filed by the applicant was treated as compensation application under Sec.12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act, in brief) and a notice was accordingly issued under the aforesaid provisions of law. In their reply to the notice, while the respondents admitted delay in the completion of the project as also their failure to refund the full amount to the applicant, they have denied the other allegations and have raised the legal issue that the matter is actionable only in the Civil Court and that it is beyond the purview of the MRTP Commission, in her rejoinder, the applicant has refuted the contentions of the respondents. After the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the application is maintainable under the MRTP Act, 1969 (2) Whether the respondents have indulged in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application (3) Whether the complainant has suffered any loss or injury (4) Relief.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement published in the Hindustan Times dated 2.2.1985 for raising a shopping complex called 'mahabir Towers', the complainant booked space for a shop under the aforesaid scheme and deposited the initial instalment of Rs.13,921 /- with the respondents. The complainant was allotted Shop Space No. RMT-112 and thereafter a Licence Deed dated 1.3.1985 was duly signed by the parties. Subsequently, the complainant deposited two more instalments with the respondents, raising the total amount of deposit to Rs.41,762/-. The built-up shop space was promised to be delivered by October, 1986. Since the construction of the project did not make any head-way in the promised time, the complainant approached the respondents for refund of the amount deposited. The respondents agreed to refund the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum through post-dated cheques amounting to a total of Rs.51,353/- drawn on the Corporation Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi. A compromise deed to this effect was also duly signed by both the parties on 18.9.1989. Out of these cheques, only two for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each were honoured by the Bank and the rest were dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter, the respondents issued post-dated cheques drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar and when this arrangement also failed to work, fresh cheques drawn on the Bank of Baroda, Connaught Place, New Delhi, were issued. When this arrangement also proved abortive, cheques drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, were finally issued to the applicant. In the entire process, cheques amounting to Rs.20,000/- were honoured and the rest were dis-honoured on the ground of 'insufficient funds' leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.31,353/- which the respondents failed to pay despite promise made to the contrary. The applicant has alleged that the respondents misled her by false representations and promises which they failed to keep.

(3.) While arguing his case, learned Advocate for the applicant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint application and emphasized that the respondents have neither delivered possession of the shop space allotted to the applicant nor have they refunded the full amount of money deposited with them. He further submitted that the respondents always adopted dilly-dallying tactics in making the payment by issuing post-dated cheques first drawn on one Bank and later on other Banks which they changed one after the other. Despite change of Banks and inconvenience caused to the applicant larger part of the deposit still remained unpaid. This he contended was nothing short of unfair trade practices. He also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Construction and Ors. V/s. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., 1999 3 CPJ 46, dated 12th August, 1999, in support of his claim. In the end, he pressed for immediate payment of the balance amount alongwith interest @ 18% and suitable compensation for the untold mental torture and agony caused to the applicant.