NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. TECHNOLOGY PARKS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Compensation Application filed by Shri Narender Kumar Gupta (hereinafter referred to as applicant) under Sec.12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against M/s. Technology Parks Ltd. , through its Managing Director/chairman, Shri P. S. Sabharwal, (hereinafter referred to as respondent ).

(2.) During 1988, the respondent represented through advertisements that the proposed Hi-Tech Technology Park/park City would be developed in Block-H, Village Tusiyana, Block Bisrakh, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (Noida - Dadri Road ). The applicant allured by the advertisements booked a plot by making a payment of Rs.25,833/- and the respondent issued Receipt No.1602 dated 25.10.1988 for the same. Accordingly, the respondent allotted a plot bearing No. H-366 measuring 135 sq. mtrs. for a total consideration of Rs.64,584/- against the booking of the applicant. The balance consideration amount (60%) was to be paid in 36 instalments of Rs.1,076.40 per month with effect from 1.12.1988. A plot buyer's agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent on 21.12.1988, which was signed by the Managing Director of the respondent Company. The applicant paid the total consideration price of Rs.58,125.60 leaving a balance of Rs.6,458.40, which was to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of the said plot.

(3.) The respondent kept on 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 his 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 withholding 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.2,58,125.60 (Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for mental tension and agony + Rs.58,125.60 as the amount deposited by him) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the dates of the deposits till the payment is made.