Back
MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE
PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Mr. R.K. Anand & Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Members
SMT. DARSHAN RANI—Applicant
versus
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Respondent
C.A. No. 335 of 1997—Decided on 3.11.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Applicant :Mr. N.R. Samy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Upadhayay, Advocate.
Delay in delivery of possession due to deficiencies in construction constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act, entitling the applicant to compensation.
Headnote:
Unfair Trade Practice - Delay in Delivery of Possession - Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The applicant applied for a ground floor flat in a housing scheme, paid registration charges, and made instalment payments. The possession of the house was not taken due to deficiencies in construction. The applicant sought a refund, compensation, and waiver of charges from the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in delivery of the house was due to deficiencies in construction and the respondent's failure to address the applicant's concerns. The court directed the respondent to hand over the possession of the house after removing the deficiencies and awarded compensation to the applicant.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices. 2. Whether the applicant suffered any loss or damage. 3. Compensation, if any.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in delivery of the house due to deficiencies constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act. The respondent was directed to address the deficiencies and hand over possession, and the applicant was awarded compensation.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to hand over the possession of the house after removing the deficiencies, waived certain charges, and awarded compensation to the applicant.
Ms. Moksh Mahaj an, Member—It appears that the applicant applied for a ground floor flat in Indrapuram Phase II in pursuance of a scheme launched by and on behalf of the respondent Authority. A sum of Rs. 9,220/- towards registration charges was paid along with the application. The applicant was allotted Registration No. 56234C101 in respect of a house reserved for her vide letter dated 15.12.1989. The applicant was also asked to pay the estimated price of the house in six instalments as indicated therein. The payments were made on the following dates as overleaf :
Instalment description
Amount (Rs.)
Due Date of Payment
Actual date of payment
Reservation Application Form No.
9,200/-
14.1.1990
8.1.1990
Instalment 1
12,267/-
30.6.1990
22.6.1990
Instalment 2
12,267/-
31.12.1990
21.12.1990
Instalment 3
12,267/-
30.6.1991
26.6.1991
Instalment 4
12,267/-
31.12.1991
27.12.1991
Instalment 5
12,267/-
30.6.1992
30.6.1992
Instalment 6
12,267/-
31.12.1992
28.12.1992
2. Thereafter a house No. 1/326, Shaktikhand, Indrapuram was allotted to her vide letter dated 17.11.1993. She also paid a sum of Rs. 15,900,’- and Rs. 3,048/- towards Lease Rent as demanded. The possession of the house was however not taken on the ground that there were certain deficiencies in the construction of the allotted house. These deficiencies were indicated in her various letters as written to the respondent from 1995 onwards. In absence of any response from the respondent the applicant approached the Commission for refund of Rs. 10,750/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon till the possession of the house is handed over. In addition cost of Rs. 10,0007- towards the expenses as well waiver- of Chowkidar charges as demanded by the respondent were prayed for.
3. In response to the notice issued, in reply thereto the respondent refuted charges levelled against it. As contended, the applicant had not taken delivery of the house since 1995 when in similar circumstances the other allottees had taken over the possession of their allotted houses in the same sector. The period of two and a half years as indicated in the Brochure is only “expected period of completion” and the cost of construction indicated therein is a tentative one subject to revision. Otherwise too, the cost of construction is dependent on various factors like the availability of land, timely payment of instalments by the allottees etc. etc. As per terms of the agreement, no interest is payable on the deposits made by the applicant in case of surrender of allotment by the applicant. On the facts as contended, the applicant is not entitled to any compensation for the reason that no charge of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent has been established.
On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed :
(1) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the petition ?
(2) Whether any loss or damage has occurred to the applicant due to the above ?
(3) Compensation, if any.
4. Both the Advocates representing the parties were heard at length and the documents perused. The witness appearing on behalf of the respondent denied existence of any deficiencies in the construction of the house in question as emphasised by the applicant in her deposition during the course of cross-examination by the other party.
5. The applicant’s grievance in the present case is against the delay in handing over the possession of the house in question. The delay in delivery of the house is stated to be not only on account of delay in construction but also for delay in handing over the possession of the same thereafter. As regards delay in construction, “expected period of completion “ of house as two and a half years’ in Clause 15 is to be read with Clause 13 of the Brochure wherein the possession of the house can only be handed over on payment of full amount. Reading the two clauses together, in this case the respondent is expected to hand over the possession of the house by December,
