The applicant started paying the installments as demanded.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The respondent also made numberefforts to issue demand letters in respect of the remaining amount subsequent to the year 1995 when the last installment was paid.
The installments were duly paid as demanded.
The applicant thus suffered losses on account of unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent, hence he sought companypensation from the respondent by filing an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictice Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The defence of the respondent was that as the full payment of Rs.6,64,000/ estimated companyt as indicated in the reservation letter was number paid, the possession of the flat was number handed over to him.
No additional demand was asked for in the second letter.
This appeal has been filed claiming interest at a higher rate.
The applicant, therefore, had numberalternative but to ask for refund of the amount as deposited.
After finding that there is numberlikelihood of the flat to be made available to him in the near future, the applicant was left with numberalternative but to demand his amount paid along with interest at the rate of 21 per annum.
The respondent on its side has numberexplanation for either number demanding the remaining amount or handing over the possession of the flat.
Subsequently, he opted out for a HIG flat, which was also allotted to him vide letter dated 17th May, 1994.
On the other hand, the applicant was given an assurance that the possession of the flat would be given to him in the near future.
The refund as requested, on the other hand was issued to him promptly.
In response to the numberice issued under Section 12B of the Act, the respondent filed its reply.
Considering the above facts, the Commission directed the respondent to pay 12 per annum interest on the installments from the dates of the payment till the date of refund.
The amount was refunded to the applicant in the year 2001 without any interest as asked for.
As a result of such unfair trade practices, the applicant has number only been deprived of return on his investment made with the respondent authority but also the possession of the flat promised to him.
Thereafter, numberhing was heard from the respondent side for almost five years.
The amount as well as the dates on which the installments were to be paid was mentioned therein.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Commission dated 13.9.2004 in C.A. No.193 of 2001.
The case of the appellant is that after applying for a flat under the Indira Puram Housing Scheme in the year 1994, a reservation letter dated 30th March, 1994 was received by him and he was asked to pay seven installments on the specified dates.
