UNDER SECTION 26 (2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT

The informants in both the matters have booked their properties with the same opposite party at Greater Noida (U.P). The main grievance of the informants is that the opposite party failed to fulfil its obligation by not handing over the possession as promised in time and therefore, violated the section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by abusing its dominant position. Since both the matters filed against the same opposite party involve common facts and common issues, both these matters are clubbed together under Regulation 27 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009.

2. The factual matrix of above informations is as under:

(i) In Case No. 04 of 2012, the informant alleged that the opposite party was a leading real estate developer which developed a commercial complex known as "UNITECH HABITAT CORNER" onPlot No. 9, Sector - Pi-II (Alistonia Estate), Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. In the year 2007, the informant booked a commercial space/unit in the said project by depositing booking amount of Rs. 1,45,350/-. Thereafter, the opposite party sent two letters dated 09th May, 2007 and 18th May, 2007 to the informant and confirmed booking by allotting her Unit No. 125 on ground floor in the said complex with super area of 323 sq. feet and promised that the possession will be given to the informant by November, 2009.

(ii) The informant alleged that the opposite party imposed onerous terms and conditions in the agreement while allotting the unit as aforesaid, which according to her were one sided and worded heavily in favour of the opposite party. The informant stated that, one such condition in the agreement was that, if the informant failed to make payment of instalments in time, she was liable to pay 18% interest per annum compounded quarterly and whereas in case of delay in delivery of possession of the allotted unit, the opposite party would pay only an amount of Rs. 8 per sq. feet. This according to the informant was a meager amount and totally one sided. Thus, according to the informant, the opposite party discriminated and exploited the informant by imposing arbitrary terms and conditions in the agreement while booking the aforesaid unit. It was further stated that, the informant initially contemplated cancelling the booking but on realizing that the entire booking amount would be forfeited by the opposite party, if she cancelled the booking, she was left with no option and opted to continue her booking.

(iii) It is submitted that, in the year 2009, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the aforesaid unit as promised. Aggrieved thereby, the informant made several representations to the opposite party but to no avail. Subsequently, the opposite party sent a demand letter on 04th April, 2009 to the informant asking her to pay the remaining instalments. The grievance of the informant is that, inspite of sending various reminders for redressing the concerns raised by her, the opposite party mechanically insisted upon her to pay the remaining instalments without addressing her grievances. Finally, the informant served a legal notice to opposite party on 06th September, 2011 and asked the opposite party to handover the possession and title by executing and registering the relevant conveyance deeds of the property without charging interest for delayed payment and to provide the discount @10% on allotted shop to compensate the loss incurred by her due to drop in market value of the property and to pay compensation @ Rs.120 sq. feet for delay in delivery of possession from November, 2009 till the delivery of possession.

(iv) The opposite party did not give response to aforesaid legal notice. The informant thus, filed this information before the Commission for appropriate action against the opposite party in accordance with the provisions of the Act. She alleged violation of section 4 of the Act. The informant pra