SUCHITRA SUREL Vs. TECHNOLOGY PARKS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has approached this Commission for award of compensation amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- under Sec.12b of the MRTP Act, 1969. The compensation claim comprises the amount paid by the applicant/complainant to respondent in different instalments, the interest leviable thereon and compensation for tension and mental agony caused to the applicant.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant applied for a one-bed room flat at Vaishali in response to advertisement released by the respondent in the newspapers. The applicant paid the booking amount of Rs.13,000/- through cheque No.292138 dated 29.6.1993 drawn on the Punjab National Bank, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi. It was duly acknowledged by the respondent vide receipt No.0475 dated 29.6.1993. Subsequently, the applicant was allotted flat No.407 on the 4th floor of the proposed building. After paying the initial amount of Rs.13,000/- the applicant paid 10 more instalments on various dates from 24.8.1993 to 21.7.1995. In all the applicant paid an amount of Rs.69,000/- against the estimated cost of Rs.90,000/- for a one-bed room flat. On visiting the site, the applicant found that no construction activity was going on nor did he get a convincing reply from the respondent's officials for stopping the construction work. Hence, the applicant stopped making payment. The respondent, however, continued to send demand letters for payment of the balance instalments. It has been stated in the compensation application that the respondent had initially promised to deliver the residential flat by December, 1995. However, the respondent neither completed the construction of the building nor handed over the possession of the flat allotted to the applicant. Aggrieved by this unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, the applicant approached the Commission for the redressal of his grievance.

(3.) A notice in respect of the above application was sent on 13.1.1999. The respondent neither filed any reply to the compensation application nor entered appearance through an Advocate or an authorised representative. In the circumstances, the respondent was set ex parte vide Commission's order dated 13.4.1999 and the case was listed for final arguments on 12.7.1999. Though the respondent was set ex parte, they were given an opportunity to take part in the final argument. However, none on behalf of the respondent appeared on 12.7.1999 to take part in the final arguments and therefore the arguments were heard as ex parte on 6.9.1999.