BEENA MALIK Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of the application filed by Smt. Beena Malik, New Delhi under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), seeking compensation from the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (GDA) alleging that the latter had indulged in unfair trade practices.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as contained in the compensation application may be recalled as follows : smt. Beena Malik, the applicant had applied for a Ground Floor Flat under Vijay Nagar, Sector - 9, LIG Housing Scheme November, 1986 of the respondent and deposited the registration amount of Rs.7,510/- on 17.12.1986. According to the applicant, till the filing of the compensation application in 1986, she had not received any intimation of allotment of the flat nor the refund of the registration amount. Visits to the office of the respondent did not elicit any satisfactory reply. The applicant has asked for refund of the registration amount with 18% interest as well as compensation for mental agony.

(3.) The respondent filed a reply to the notice of compensation application. According to it the applicant was unsuccessful in the draw held for allotment of flats and, therefore, was entitled to take back the registration amount from the Vysya Bank. The unsuccessful applicants had to submit the original challan to the Bank to take back the registration amount. The respondent had deposited the registration amount of the applicant of Rs.7,500/- along with interest of Rs.313/- with Vysya Bank, Ghaziabad on 19.11.1987. The Bank had in turn also prepared the cheque in the name of the complainant on 17.11.1987. The applicant never produced the challan to the Bank nor approached the Bank and has avoided taking back the registration amount. The respondent has not indulged in any unfair trade practices as alleged. In the reply the respondent also pointed out that the Vysya Bank, Ghaziabad is a necessary party in the present case and the compensation application should be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the compensation application is not maintainable for the preliminary objections taken by the respondent in its reply (2) Whether the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practices alleged by the applicant in her compensation application (3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damages as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices (4) The amount of compensation to which the applicant is entitled