JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-The appellant applied for the allotment of a plot measuring 350 sq. mtrs. under the Scheme of "Indrapuram" and paid registration amount of Rs. 42,000/- on 28th July, 1989. A further sum of Rs. 63,000/- being the reservation amount was paid and plot allotted to him vide letter of the respondent-authority dated 5th November, 1989. The first instalment of Rs. 76,125/- was paid by him on 16th August, 1990. Further instalments during 1990-95 were not paid allegedly on the ground that the respondent-authority had not made any development at the site. The appellant further stated that he was made to believe that the possession of the plot would be handed over to him by the year 1991. Vide letter dated 28th February, 1995, the appellant was informed that if the balance amount is not paid by him by 30th November, 1995, interest would be charged on the balance amount due. The appellant s contention is that in terms of the aforesaid letter the interest, if any, can be charged for the period commencing from 30th November, 1995 and not earlier to it. He had already paid a total sum of Rs. 5,74,993/- but the respondents were allegedly wrongly insisting for the payment of an additional amount of Rs. 2,34,127/- before delivery of possession of the plot. As the plot was not delivered to him, the appellant filed a complaint under Sections 36A, 36B(a) and 36D of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act") before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") which was registered as Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry No. 92/97.

2. Notice of enquiry under the provisions of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent who appeared before the Commission and contended that the appellant himself through his letter dated 13th December, 1996 admitted the delay in payments and indicated his willingness to pay the entire amount outstanding against him with the request not to cancel the allotment due to delayed payments. The amount liable to be paid by the appellant was stated to have been calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure circulated. The respondents could have cancelled the allotment in terms of the regulations contained in the brochure but it was not done to facilitate the appellant to make the payment of the balance amount. It was contended that the necessary facilities of sewerage, drainage, water supply and electricity connections were made available to the plot-holders including the appellant in Indrapuram Scheme. Regarding delivery of possession, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-authority, that in the brochure only estimated time of completion of scheme was indicated and delay in completion had occurred due to various factors including the constraints of funds. It was further pleaded that the paucity of financial resources had been caused due to delay or default in payment by the allottees like the appellant.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commission framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE?

2. Whether these unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of the complainant/other members of the public?

3. Whether he is entitled to relief/compensation claimed made by him in the compensation applicant?

4. Relief, if any?"

After referring to the pleadings and the evidence produced, the Commission concluded:

"It transpires that the applicant/complainant has of his own accord, approached the respondent and indicated his willingness to pay the amount due from him. Not only has he shown his desire to clear the dues, he has also acknowledged that there has been delay on his part in making the payment. Perusal of the allotment latter reveals that there is a stipulation with regard to payment of interest and penal interest if th