PREM NARAIN ASTHANA Vs. TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Shri Prem Narain Asthana s/o Shri Shiv Charan Lal, r/o A6-F1, Dilshad Garden, Shahdara, Delhi- 110032 (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Sec.12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd. , through its Managing Director/chairman, Shri P. S. Sabharwal, 50 and 51, Regal Building Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as respondent ).

(2.) During 1988, the respondent represented through mass advertisements that the proposed Technology Park/park City would be a Hi-Tech Enterprise Zone Project in village Tusiyana, Block Bisrakh, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (NOIDA-Dadri Road ). The applicant, who is a retired Non-Government Servant, allured by the advertisements booked a plot by making a payment of Rs.39,468/- and the respondent issued Receipt No.113 dated 18.5.1989 for the same. Accordingly, the respondent allotted a Plot bearing No. B-115 measuring 299 sq. yards @ Rs.330/- per sq. yard for a total consideration of Rs.98,670 /- against the booking of the applicant. Accordingly, a Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent on 19.12.1998. Entire consideration price of Rs.98,670/- was paid by the applicant in monthly instalments of Rs.1,644/-. In addition, the applicant also paid an amount of Rs.11/960/- towards sewerage and development charges as demanded by the respondent. As such, total sum of Rs.1,10,630/- was paid by the applicant to the respondent against the said booking.

(3.) The respondent kept informing the applicant from time to time that the plot is being developed. In addition, the respondent through its Advocate, Mr. Suresh Vohra issued a public notice that the development of the project is in full swing but in reality there was no development in the said project of the respondent. The applicant waited for years for the physical possession of the said plot. In the end, he requested the respondent either to allot the plot or to refund his deposits but all in vain. According to the applicant, withholding of money deposited towards cost of plot by the respondent constitutes deficiency of service and is covered under the unfair trade practice of misrepresentation of the facts attracting the provisions of Sec.36a of the Act. Since the acts of the respondent to withhold the money of the applicant without any reason is an act of unfair trade practice, the applicant approached this Commission vide an application under Sec.12-B of the Act, claiming therein a total sum of Rs.3,10,630/- (Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for mental tension and agony + Rs.1.10.630/- as the amount deposited by him) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the dates of the deposits till the payment is made.