DARSHAN SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only relief sought by way of compensation in the application filed in C. A. No.147/98 is for a refund at Rs.10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from 15.7.1996 till the date of realization of the amount. This claim is based on the facts as detailed in the application.

(2.) Briefly stated, in pursuance of an advertisement of Janta Flats in Pitampura launched by the respondent, the applicant applied for and was allotted Flat No.24b, Block HB, Pitampura, Delhi - 34 on higher purchase basis. The applicant paid Rs.5,000/- towards initial registration amount. In addition a sum of Rs.31,426/- was paid by way of various instal-ments from 28.2.1993 to 15.7.1996 totalling to Rs.36,426/-. The payment so made was reportedly in excess of Rs.27,000/- payable with interest for belated payments of various instalments by the applicant. For non-refund of the excess amount paid and for non-waiver of penalty as requested, the applicant approached the Commission with a complaint against the Delhi Develop-ment Authority for having indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act ). For loss or damages suffered on account of such unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent, the compensation has been sought under Sec.12b of the Act.

(3.) Notice to the compensation application was sent to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ). In its reply, it refuted all the allegations levelled against it. It is contended that the total cost of the flat was at Rs.19,000/- which was payable in 15 years on monthly instalments of Rs.137.85 each. The first instalment was payable on 10.10.1980 after which the other instalments were to be paid every month. In case of non-payment or delayed payment of the instalment, the allottee was to be charged penalty at a specific rate, which increased for default of each month. The applicant instead of making payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme paid the amount intermittently for which he was given credit while adjusting the total amount payable. After adjusting the amount as paid, the net amount of penalty payable on behalf of the applicant worked out to Rs.37,873/-. In addition, the applicant was required to pay ground rent and supervision charges along with the interest thereon. Despite recovery notice sent to the applicant, no payment was made. In absence of any receipt filed in regard to an amount of Rs.10,000/- as stated to have been paid no credit could be given to the applicant. In the circumstances, charges of unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent could not be established much less the prayer for compensation to be awarded.