VIKAS PODDAR Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this application under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in short) for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.26,420/- with interest @ 18% per annum for the loss suffered by him due to the unfair trade practices adopted by the respondents. He has also claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- for incurring additional expenditure and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(2.) To briefly state the background of this case, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.1') launched a residential scheme called "the Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave (Plots) Scheme" in February, 1992. Respondent No.1 entered into an arrangement with the Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No.2') under which the registration money payable by the applicants was to be deposited in the specified branches of respondent No.2. Under the aforesaid arrangement, the refund of registration money to the unsuccessful applicants was also to be taken care of by these branches of the Bank.

(3.) The applicant's case is that he applied for a plot under the aforesaid scheme and deposited the registration amount of Rs.26,420/- on 25.2.1992 in the Patna branch of respondent No.2 vide receipt No.1113. It has been stated that as per Clause 9.00 of the brochure, respondent No.2 was required to refund the registration amount to the unsuccessful applicants directly, one month after the draw. The applicant's grievance is that he was neither informed about the date of draw nor the results of draw were published in the newspapers, nor was the date of draw indicated in the brochure of the scheme. When the applicant did not hear from either of the respondents for a very long time, he wrote to respondent No.2 on 1.6.1995 to seek refund of the registration amount along with interest. This was followed up by several reminders including a legal notice and personal visits to the offices of the respondents. The applicant also sent the original challan receipt to respondent No.2. More than three years passed in waiting, yet the refund did not come forth. It has been alleged that the failure on the part of the respondents to refund the registration money in violation of terms and conditions given in the brochure, is tantamount to unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a of the MRTP Act, as a consequence of which, the applicant suffered a big loss and harassment.