Mr. S.K. Parthasarathy, Member—A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued to the respondent - Ghaziabad Development Authority on 11.9.1997 under Section 10(a)(i) and Section 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 Section 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.

4. The respondent filed a reply to an NOE in which it had pointed out that the period of 2 years represented was only an expected period. The amended increased cost was based on final costing to be worked out at the time of handing over the possession and it was binding on the allottees. The respondent also admitted that the apartment reserved for the complainant had been allotted to the Income-tax Department and the complainant had been allotted apartment in Krishna Tower by means of letter dated 4.10.1997 which was admittedly issued after the complaint was filed with the Commission.

5. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether the respondent has been or is indulging in the unfair/restrictive trade practices as alleged in the complaint ?

(2) If so, such unfair/restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or to the consumer or consumers generally ?

(3) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage due to the above?

(4) Relied.

6. Both the parties agreed that the case could be adjudicated on the basis of the affidavit and counter-affidavit to be filed. In the affidavit and counter-affidavit filed both the parties had reiterated their stand in the complaint and the reply to the NOE.

7. I gave a hearing to Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate for the respondent.

8. The Advocate for the complainant pointed out that the Commission in its orders dated 9.1.1996 in C.A. No. 89/95, Shri P.K. Bhardwaj v. G.D.A., and C.A. No. 90/95, Shri Anil Swarup Sharma v. G.D.A., have already held that in regard to its dealings with allottees in respect of Vaishali Apartments under the same scheme bearing No. 547 the respondent had indulged in u