The amount liable to be paid by the appellant was stated to have been calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the brochure circulated.
Regarding delivery of possession, it was companytended on behalf of the respondent authority, that in the brochure only estimated time of companypletion of scheme was indicated and delay in companypletion had occurred due to various factors including the companystraints of funds.
Notice of enquiry under the provisions of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent who appeared before the Commission and companytended that the appellant himself through his letter dated 13th December, 1996 admitted the delay in payments and indicated his willingness to pay the entire amount outstanding against him with the request number to cancel the allotment due to delayed payments.
As the plot was number delivered to him, the appellant filed a companyplaint under Sections 36A, 36B a and 36D of the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Act hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission which was registered as Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry No.92/97.
The appellant further stated that he was made to believe that the possession of the plot would be handed over to him by the year 1991.
The appellants companytention is that in terms of the aforesaid letter the interest, if any, can be charged for the period companymencing from 30th November, 1995 and number earlier to it.
The first instalment of Rs.76,125/ was paid by him on 16th August, 1990.
He had already paid a total sum of Rs.5,74,993/ but the respondents were allegedly wrongly insisting for the payment of an additional amount of Rs.2,34,127/ before delivery of possession of the plot.
The appellant thereafter paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on 7.1.1997 and Rs.1,29,600/ on 13.1.1997 before filing his companyplaint in the Commission on 28th February, 1997.
It was further pleaded that the paucity of financial resources had been caused due to delay or default in payment by the allottees like the appellant.
A further sum of Rs.63,000/ being the reservation amount was paid and plot allotted to him vide letter of the respondent authority dated 5th November, 1989.
Further instalments during 1990 95 were number paid allegedly on the ground that the respondent authority had number made any development at the site.
under the Scheme of Indrapuram and paid registration amount of Rs.42,000/ on 28th July, 1989.
Having failed to perform his part of the companytract, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge that he is number liable to pay the balance amount along with interest as according to him the respondent authority had failed to deliver possession as per terms of the brochure.
It was companytended that the necessary facilities of sewerage, drainage, water supply and electricity companynections were made available to the plot holders including the appellant in Indrapuram Scheme.
Vide letter dated 28th February, 1995, the appellant was informed that if the balance amount is number paid by him by 30th November, 1995, interest would be charged on the balance amount due.
The respondents companyld have cancelled the allotment in terms of the regulations companytained in the brochure but it was number done to facilitate the appellant to make the payment of the balance amount.
SETHI,J. LITTTTTTTJ The appellant applied for the allotment of a plot measuring 350 sq.mtrs.
