UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE ACT

1. The informant filed an information under section 19(1) of the Competition Act stating therein that the opposite party floated a housing project in the name of Hirco Hiranandani Palace Gardens Project in the suburban Chennai called White House. The informant and his wife booked a unit in this project. A provisional allotment letter was issued to them on 2^nd July, 2008. In pursuance of the same, the informant and his wife paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14^th July, 2008 and flat number 304 was allotted to them. The formal allotment letter was issued on 27^th August, 2008. This allotment letter contained a schedule of payment and other terms & conditions. As per these terms & conditions, the opposite party was to complete building within 2 years and handover the possession to the informant some time in year 2011. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 50,55,250/-. The informant had made part payments on demand by the opposite party for sometime and had paid a total sum of Rs. 9,20,875/-. However, when that the project was not even staffed, the informant contacted 'Dedicated Consumer Relations Manager' of the OP in February, 2009 and thereafter and had been consistently seeking information from customer services officials Mr. Tarun Mukherjee and Firdos Vandrewala about the construction plan and approval status of the project. No information was given to the informant despite several e-mails sent by the informant. The informant made independent inquiries and came to know that the opposite party had in fact duped the informant and others by obtaining advance payments without their being an approval from planning authorities of the project. After learning this, the informant requested for refund of the advance amount paid by him. The informant also sent a legal notice. However, reply to the legal notice was given by the opposite party but the refund of the entire amount was not made.

2. The informant has alleged that the opposite party was a dominant player in the market of suburban Chennai and has abused its dominant position in the following manner:-

(i) By commencement of the project without sanction/approval of the project from competent authorities;

(ii) By midway increasing the number of floors for several buildings at Palace Gardens. The initial outlay plan when the booking was made in favour of the informant was of construction of a 15 storey building. This was later increased to 27 storey in one tower and 29 storey in other tower without any consultation with the informant in a manner prejudicial to the informant.

(iii) Instead of building its existing project, the opposite party started bookings of similar two new projects namely Modena (1 BHK) and Valencia (2 BHK) and 20% of the cost was being collected as advance from the flat bookers.

(iv) The conditions put in the allotment letter were highly favourable to the opposite party. The amount paid by the informant was to be treated as interest free deposit in case the approval from the relevant authority was not given in respect of the project.;

The informant made following prayers :

(i) Direct further investigation of the present case by the Hon'ble Director General;

(ii) Hold that Hirco has abused its dominant position in the relevant market;

(iii) Direct Hirco to cease and desist from abusing its dominant position;

(iv) Impose appropriate penalty on Hirco for abusing its dominant position; and

(v) Direct refund of the entire sum adevanced by the informant to Hirco along with 18% interest and compensatory damages.

3. The relevant geographic market in this case has been stated by the informant as suburban Chennai. However, the informant has failed to come out with the information as to who were the other players in the field in that area, what was their market share, what other projects were launched by different players and how the opposite party was a dominant player vis-a-vis other players in the market. The relevant product market has been stated by