PREETI RAVINDRAN Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN G D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued to the respondent - Ghaziabad Development Authority on 11.9.1997 under Sec.10 (a) (i) and Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) based on a complaint filed by Smt. Preeti Ravindran. Since in the complaint the complainant had also claimed compensation under Sec.12b of the Act, the enquiry was treated as composite enquiry.

(2.) The facts of the case as contained in the complaint may be briefly summarised as below.

(3.) The respondent had invited application in 1989 from general public for allotment of flats under "vaishali Apartments" to be constructed at Vaishali which is located within 12 kms. from the Delhi. The respondent had stated in the brochure relating to the scheme that land was available for construction and the flats were expected to be completed within two years from the date of reservation. It was also stated that the respondent would make efforts to arrest the burden of escalation of the cost. The complainant applied for the allotment of Deluxe Type A at an estimated cost of Rs.4,67,000/- and deposited Rs.46,720/- on 3.3.1989 with the respondent. As per the payment schedule of the respondent the complainant was to pay 40% of the cost in four half yearly instalments and rest 60% in 13 years in half yearly instalments after allotment and possession. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.2,05,198/- including interest on delayed instalments upto 11.3.1994. In August, 1994 the respondent intimated the complainant that the cost of the house worked out Rs.7,07,400/- and the complainant was directed to pay the difference in cost representing 40% in three instalments by 31.3.1995. The complainant immediately wrote to the respondent through its letter dated 7.10.1994 and since no satisfactory response was received the complainant wrote to the respondent again on 25.12.1996 asking for refund of the entire amount paid with interest. The complainant also came to know in January, 1997 that the building known as Saryu in which a flat was reserved for him had been allotted by the respondent to a Government Department and some other apartment would be allotted to him.