OM PRAKASH SINGHAL Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This relates to the Compensation Application filed by Shri Om Prakash Singhal under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA ).

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that in response to the advertisement of the respondent in this case, the GDA, he applied for a plot of land in the proposed township, Karpuripuram in 1991. The possession of the plot was promised within three years of registration. The applicant was allotted a plot and as demanded by the respondent he paid the registration amount, the reservation amount and five instalments amounting to Rs.86,084/- between 8.3.1991 and 30.3.1994. After payment of the fifth instalment, he found the GDA had not even acquired the land for the Scheme and no development activity for the Scheme like the building of roads, provision of electricity, etc. had started. He, therefore, applied in May, 1995 for refund of the deposits made by him. The respondent refunded a sum of Rs.84,039/- in four instalments between 19.1.1996 and 26.4.1996. He alleges unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent in their dealings with him. He claims, apart from interest on his deposits, compensation for the expenses incurred by him in pursuing this case and for mental agony undergone by him.

(3.) In reply to the notice issued to it, the respondent has stated that the three years period for possession of the plot was not fixed and it was only an indication of the expectation. Since there were disputes relating to the compensation to be paid to the land-owner there was delay in development work. Since the complainant requested for refund of the deposited amount saying that he was not interested in the plot, the refund was made to him after deduction of the permissible amount in accordance with Clause 10.20 of the Brochure containing the terms and conditions of the Scheme. The complainant did not protest or object at the time of withdrawal of the amount as seen from his letter dated 24th May, 1995.