PRADEEP THUKRAL Vs. AAR PEE APARTMENTS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Pradeep Thukral (applicant hereafter) has moved this Commission with an application under Sec.12b of the MRTPC Act, 1969 claiming compensation against Aar Pee Apartments Pvt. Ltd. (respondent hereafter) having suffered loss and damage on account of certain restrictive and unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent.

(2.) The applicant booked a shop space with an area of 97 sq. ft. for a price of Rs.82,540/- in the Janakpuri Tower Local Shopping Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi with the respondent. The price agreed was at Rs.850/- per sq. ft. The initial deposit of Rs.11,750/- was paid by the applicant on 24th July, 1987 at the time to booking with the balance amount being payable at the various stages of construction in terms of a schedule prescribed by the respondent. The applicant was allotted a shop bearing number G-3, B-4/a1 with the understanding that the construction would be completed by 1989.

(3.) According to the applicant, he paid the instalments from time to time, on receiving demand notices from the respondent though the notices were sent, not in accordance with the time schedule prescribed by the respondent. Very often, the demand letter was of a very short notice, placing a great strain on the applicant as he had to borrow from outside sources at high interest rates. There was always a threat of cancellation in the event of delaying the payment. The respondent however never complied with the time schedule for construction of the shop. The applicant paid 95% of the total price of the shop but possession of the shop was never handed over to him. On 26th December, 1992, he received a demand notice for an amount of Rs.33,658/-. The applicant states that this demand was totally unjustified and contrary to the agreement and the price. The respondent had demanded the extra amount on the ground of escalation of the cost of the cement and the extra height of the shop under construction. When the applicant inspected the shop he was shocked to find that the area of the shop allotted was only 50% of the originally agreed 97 sq. ft. Even though the agreement provided that the area constituted the super area, it was shocking to the applicant that the common facilities space reduction was about 50% of the super area.