Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices CommissionBhim Sen vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 January, 2003Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ124(MRTP)ORDERMr. R.K. Anand, Member1. The complainant - Shri Bhim Sen has filed a complaint petition charging the respondent, the Delhi Development Authority, with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and stating therein that he applied for a flat under the Low Income Group Scheme of the respondent and paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as the initial deposit and he was registered at Sl. No. 40447. In support of this averment, the applicant has annexed the registration slip issued to him. He has also enclosed the deposit receipt, issued by the respondent, for the amount of Rs. 1,500/-. Thereafter, the complainant approached the respondent by writing a letter dated 11.3.1993 for issuing the allotment-cum-demand letter and also sent a reminder dated 13.4.1993 but there was no response from the respondent. The correspondence with the respondent, however, continued till 1998. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the flat in question, had been allotted to somebody else by the respondent.2. In reply to the aforsesaid complaint petition, on the basis of which U.T.P.E. No. 8/ 2001 was instituted, it was stated by Shri V.K. Singhal, Director (Housing) II on behalf of the respondent that inadvertently the allotment-cum-demand letter was issued by the concerned clerks at the wrong address. It has been further stated that the respondent has since made amends and offered allotment of a flat No. 521, GR-17, Pockets 5 and 7, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and also asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,15,890.86.3. The respondent, however, failed to file a reply to the Notice of Enquiry dated 29.1.2001 despite the opportunity given for this purpose and accordingly, the respondent was set ex parte. The learned Advocate for the respondent was

also asked to seek instructions whether the respondent was willing to give allotment of the flat in question, at the price prevailing in 1991--the year when the flat was originally to be allotted to the applicant.4. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the parties. The learned Advocate representing the respondent states that the flat in question can be offered to the applicant/ complainant at the price prevailing in 1991 but with compound interest @ 7% for the intervening period and the price of the flat calculated on that basis works out to Rs. 3,76,800/-. This amount also includes interest as mentioned above till September, 2002. The contention of the complainant, however, is that he is being burdened with interest amount for no fault of his. The complainant further states that he did not receive the demand letter as the same was sent by the respondent at the wrong address, otherwise he would have made the instalments within the stipulated time frame, The mistake on the part of the respondent is not denied or disputed and as stated above, the respondent has offered allotment of an alternative flat vide its letter dated 19.3.2001. The aforesaid letter of the respondent however reflects the current cost of the flat, which subsequently has been modified by the respondent and the complainant has been asked to pay the price prevailing in 1991 with compound interest @ 7%. This offer has been made by the learned Advocate representing the respondent in the Court, in response to the Commission's oral order dated 8.1.2002.5. It appears to us that the respondent has been guilty of gross negligence by sending the demand letter at the wrong address. We do not want to go into the motives of the official working in the respondent's office, as we are of the view that it is for the Vice-Chairman of the respondent to take appropriate action against the delinquent officers so that such instances do not occur again. The fact remains that the complainant was deprived of the allotment for no fault of his and is now being asked to pay compound interest @ 7% per annum which is an avoidable financial hardship. It also

transpires that the complainant also deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 9.4.2001 and has also been corresponding with the respondent asking the respondent to issue the allotment-cum-demand letter so as to enable him to fnake the full payment and get the possession of the flat in question. The bona fides of the complainant, therefore, cannot be called into question and the complainant has even today made the offer that the entire amount towards the cost of the flat as prevailing in 1991 would be paid in lump sum within a month's time in order to get possession of the flat in question.6. In view of our aforesaid discussions, we find that the respondent is guilty of not only gross negligence, it is also guilty of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning ofSection 36A(1)of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) in so far as it made a misrepresentation or false representation to the complainant that a flat would be allotted to him but failed to offer the allotment and failure on the part of respondent also tantamounts to deficiency in service.Section 2(r)of the Act spells out definition of service and "service" envisages dealings in real estate. Thus the present grievance of the complainant attracts the provisions ofSection 36A(1)of the Act and the impugned trade practice also appears to the prejudicial to the interest of the consumer. Therefore, the respondent is directed to discontinue the aforesaid unfair trade practices forthwith and also give an undertaking not to repeat the same or similar unfair trade practices, in future, We also direct the respondent to give possession of the flat in question at the price prevailing in 1991, without burdening the complainant with compound interest @ 7%. The complainant is also directed to deposit the entire amount in lumpsum within four weeks. The respondent is further directed to file an affidavit by way of compliance, within six weeks.