PREM KUMAR GUPTA Vs. MAXWORTH ORCHARDS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a complaint filed by Shri Prem Kumar Gupta - the complainant has charged the respondents viz. M/s. Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. and Ors. for having adopted and indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a read with Sec.36b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short, Act ). For having suffered loss on account of such unfair frade practices on the part of the respondents, compensation at Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony in addition to refund of twice over the amount of deposited with the respondents along with interest @ 25% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of realization, has been claimed in an application made separately under Sec.12b of the Act. As both the application as well the complaint petition arise from the same cause of action pertaining to the same subject-matter, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the common facts in both the complaint petition as well the compensation application are that the respondents Company - M/s. Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited is engaged in the business of selling Orchards in different States of India. Representations were made through advertisement in the newspapers, by issue of pamphlets and through the sales representatives that for a consideration, a party can acquire land, which forms part of the 'scheme Orchards'. This would be along with income arising out of agricultural operations to be carried on, on the aforesaid land. The registration of the sale deed of the land would be done within a period of 180 days from the date of realization of the entire consideration and cost of maintenance is to be indicated in the agreement accompanied with the schedule. The respondent No.1 on its part, after carrying out the survey, demarcation, clearing and other related operations on the land would cultivate the land on behalf of the Orchards's owner. The cultivation would be on the strength of drip irrigation system or any other superior irrigation system depending upon the crop to be cultivated on the scheduled property. The respondents would not have a right over the scheduled property or the trees grown thereon or the produce out of the same, except for the condition in Clause 7 (b) of the agreement. Allured with the representation so made, the applicant/complainant along with his wife Mrs. Veena Gupta applied for an Orchard measuring 1 acre in one of their projects being known as Max-Kakrola Project in the State U. P. It paid an amount of Rs.1,22,550/-. This was towards full and final price of the Orchard. The respondent sent the agreement to the applicant/complainant for its signatures on 26.11.1996, which was stated to have been returned to the respondent after doing the needful. Despite that the deed was not registered within 180 days as promised. The matter was taken up with the respondents and after lapse of 11 months, the respondents intimated that they were not in receipt of the copy of the agreement signed by the applicant/complainant. Subsequently, various reminders were given in response to which respondent No.3 intimated that they were facing a serious cash crunch problem and as such the project could not be fully developed. They also promised that sale deeds would be ready for delivery by December, 1997. However, this was not done and in absence of any further response from the respondents, the applicant/complainant filed both the complaint petition under Sec.36b of the Act and the application under Sec.12b of the Act.

(3.) Notice in respect of both the complaint petition as well the compensation application was issued to the respondents. As neither proceedings were represented to by and on behalf of the respondents nor any reply was filed, the proceedings were set ex-parte against the respondents vide Commission's order dated 17.11.1999. The applicant filed an affidavit of evidence along with the documents relied upon in support of its case. The ex-parte arguments were also advanced by Shri Vivek Kudesia on behalf of the applicant/complainant.