USHA THAPA Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Mrs. Usha Thapa has filed an application for compensation under Sec.12b of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices, and stating, therein, that she had booked a plot in the Shatabdi Nagar Housing Scheme, Phase II of the respondent, on 29.11.1989 and paid the registration amount of Rs.4,500/- and she was also allotted a type 'd' plot No.3/480, Sector-8 in the aforesaid scheme. It has also been mentioned by her that the payment schedule contained in instalment letter No.2299 dated 31.10.1990 was sent to her by the respondent and pursuant thereto, she deposited the allotment money of Rs.9,000/- on 27.2.1990 with the respondent's official banker, the Andhra Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. She has further stated that she has paid a total amount of Rs.56,340/- (Rs.45,000/- towards the cost of the plot and Rs.11,340/- as interest ). Her grievance is that even though she deposited the entire amount demanded by the respondent, she did not get the possession of the plot, in question, and instead, an offer of an alternate plot was made to her, but she was not interested in the same, and she requested for refund of the amount of Rs.56,340/- with interest vide her letter dated 8.11.1996, but she did not get the refund in spite of repeated reminders. It has been further stated by her that the respondent vide its letter dated 11.4.1997 asked her to deposit the original documents so that her request for refund of the amount could be processed. Consequently, she provided the original documents and receipts but the respondent instead of refunding the amount offered her an alternative plot vide its letter dated 20.5.1997. She thereupon, informed the respondent that she was not interested in the alternative offer and that the deposited amount be refunded to her with interest, by a Bank draft of that amount.

(2.) In its reply, the respondent has denied the allegation of unfair trade practices and stated that the time for handing over the possession of the plot was approximate, and was dependent on the progress in the development of the area, where the plot was situated. It has been further mentioned in the reply that an alternative plot was offered to the applicant as the development work in the sector where the plot was booked by her was not progressing and plots were not available for allotment. It has also been mentioned that the applicant is entitled to refund of the amount without interest as per the rules of the respondent.

(3.) On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application (2) Whether the alleged unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of the consumer/consumers generally (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices (4) Relief, if any.