S C GADIHOKE Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the applicant, as expressed in its application filed before the Commission, is that after having promised to hand over the possession of the allotted house on payment of the amount as demanded, the offer of the house in a dilapidated condition is an unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent Authority within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short, the Act ). It is explained that pursuant to the advertisement regarding "shatabadi Nagar Group Housing Scheme" on Delhi-Rewari National Highway, Meerut launched by the respondent in the year 1991, the applicant applied for three bed room apartment and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards registration amount. It also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the allotment amount as demanded by the respondent. On further demand made by the respondent vide instalment letter dated 28.4.1991, the applicant paid four instalments of Rs.25,000/- each on 31.5.1991, 25.11.1991, 13.6.1992, and 26.2.1993. The penal interest of Rs.190/- and Rs.1,125/- for belated payment of instalment Nos.3 and 4 respectively was also paid. Even the subsequent demand of Rs.60,000.00 payable at the time of handing over possession of the house was paid on 29.1.1997. The respondent thereafter informed the applicant to take over the possession of the house No. B-210 as allotted. On inspection of the house, the same was found to be in a dilapidated condition inasmuch as it was not in a habitable condition. There was no provision for water, electricity and sewerage. The applicant accordingly asked for refund of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest of Rs.2,43,150/- @ Rs.18% per annum from the date of deposit made. For having not fulfilled its promise in terms of the tall claims made in the advertisement, the respondent allured the applicant to buy the house as a consequence of which it suffered loss. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to compensation for losses/damages suffered on account of unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent along with refund of its amount with litigation cost. In addition it is also entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 for mental torture and harassment contends the applicant. This is to be allowed under Sec.12b of the Act under which the application stands filed.

(2.) The contention of the respondent on the other hand is that the applicant has not been discriminated qua other allottees. The allotment letter conveyed the estimated cost of the house which was subject to revision on determination of final cost, as duly communicated to the applicant. The applicant itself refused to take the possession of the house when offered. The respondent is still ready to refund the amount.

(3.) On completion of the pleadings, the followings issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging unfair/restrictive trade practices as alleged in the complaint application (2) If so, whether any loss or damage caused to the applicant on account of such unfair/restrictive trade practices (3) Relief, if any.