IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Development Authority - The development authority is a government authority and is required and expected to function in accordance with the prescribed administrative and financial rules, its accounts are subject to audit, its functionaries are subject to accountability.
(2) Onus of proof - The onus to substantiate its assertion that the complainant had availed of its services for ‘commercial purpose’ was on the development authority, which onus it miserably failed to discharge, no worthwhile convincing evidence to support its assertion was ever led by the development authority.
(3) List - the list provided under section 2(1)(r) is illustrative and not comprehensive or exhaustive. As such, an unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, as may be judiciously determined on facts and reason after fair and objective appraisal of the evidence and material on record, would qualify as ‘unfair trade practice’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(r).

ORDER

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.11.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 315 of 2018.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘development authority’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (the ‘complainant’) and have perused the record.

3. The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 177 days.

Learned counsel for the development authority draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests that the delay be condoned.

Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose, submitting that he would prefer putting a period to the lis by a decision on merits.

In the interest of justice, considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, as also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, and in order to decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on the threshold of limitation, the delay is being condoned.

4. Brief relevant facts, as evince from a reading of the complaint, the written version and the appraisal made by the State Commission, are that the complainant had applied on 12.01.2012 to the development authority for a residential flat. The total consideration amount was Rs. 69,00,000/-. On 12.01.2012 itself, along with his application, he also deposited an amount of Rs. 6,90,000/- as earnest money, being 10% of the consideration amount. The scheme in question was over-subscribed. Consequently allotment was made by draw of lots, in which the complainant was successful. He deposited a second instalment of Rs.13,80,000/-, being 20% of the consideration amount, within the stipulated time period, vide a bank draft dated 11.06.2012. The development authority, however, for reasons best known to itself and not known to anyone else yet, did not acknowledge receipt of the said amount and cancelled the allotment on ground that the terms and conditions of allotment had not been adhered to. It refunded the earnest money of Rs. 6,90,000/- after making a deduction of 10% i.e. Rs. 69,000/-. The complainant was aggrieved with both, not acknowledging receipt of the amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- deposited by him and the unfounded wrongful cancellation of his allotment. He continuously pursued the matter with the development authority, he had to inter alia take recourse to filing representations with the development authority, filing complaint with the police, seeking information under the RTI Act and filing appeal before the appellate authority. After about six years the development authority finally acknowledged that in fact the complainant had actually paid the said amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- in 2012 and refunded the same vide a cheque dated 19.02.2018. The complainant went before the State Commission on 23.04.2018, seeking revival of his allotment or in the alternative compensation by way of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total deposited amount of Rs. 20,70,000/- (Rs. 6,90,000/- + Rs. 13,80,000/-) from the respective dates of deposit till 19.02.2018 (the date of the cheque vide which the amount of Rs. 13,80,000/- was finally refunded) along with lumpsum Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and wrongful cancellation of his allotment without his consent and against the provisions of the letter of intent.

5. The State Commission allowed the complaint on contest. It awarded interest at the rate of 8% compounded annually on the total deposited amount of Rs. 20,70,000/- from the respective dates of deposit till realisation along with refund of the amount of Rs. 69,000/- deducted from the earnest money as also lumpsum Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment inclusive of litigation expenses. It also stipulated that the compliance be made within 30 days failing which the amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its Order.

6. We notice that the State Commission