Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Samajik Nayay And Ors. vs Ghaziabad Development Authority on 14 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ109(MRTP)
ORDER
Moksh Mahajan, Member
1. In three separate complaints filed in UTPE 93/1997, UTPE 126/1997 and UTPE 127/1997, a common grievance has been expressed against the respondent i.e. Ghaziabad Development Authority. It is the contention of the complainants that charging interest on various instalments along with the very first instalment of payment from the complainants is unjustified specifically in absence of any development carried out on the plots stated to have been reserved for them.
2. Briefly listed, the facts which are common to all the complaints are that pursuant to the Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Scheme launched by the respondent Authority, the complainants applied for allotment of plots to the respondent. The registration charges as demanded were deposited as under :
Vide letters dated 20th February, 1993 issued in U.T.P.E. No. 93/1997 and U.T.P.E. 127/ 1997 and 12th February, 1993 in U.T.P.E. No. 126/1997, they were informed that the plots were reserved under Scheme Code 634 and Property Code 740. The estimated cost of each plot was fixed at Rs. 1,47,840/-. As per the said letters, the instalments as required were to be paid as under :
3. It was clearly indicated therein that if the amounts payable to the respondent Authority were not paid within the prescribed time, penal interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable a long with 'the payable amount'. It was also made clear that "terms and conditions as stipulated in the Brochure of the Scheme would hold good and the allocation is subjected to those conditions".
The complainants instead of making payments in respect or the instalments as demanded put the respondent on the legal notice. Serious objections were raised in respect of chargeable interest at Rs. 9,314/- with the very first and other instalments. As per the contents of the legal notice which are common to all the complainants, the land in question had not yet been developed and the estimated cost of the plot at Rs. 1,47,840/- was exorbitant - not within the means of a common man. It was prayed that either developed plots at Indira Puram Priyadarshini Enclave Plot Scheme should be handed over to them immediately or the registration amount alongwith interest @ 21% be refunded. In absence of any reply received from the respondent Authority, the complainants filed the complaints before the Commission. The plea of the complainants was that the activity of the respondent Authority clearly amounted to unfair/restrictive trade practices covered under Sections 10 and 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). It was prayed that the respondent should be directed not to cancel the plots as allotted or in the alternative refund their registration amount with interest at the market rates alongwith cost to the petitioners.
4. On hearing the complaints, the Commission directed that a Notice of Enquiry be issued in all the three cases for restrictive and unfair trade practices falling under Section 2(o)(ii) and Section 36-A of the Act. Applications filed under Section 12-A by the complainants were also heard and Commission restrained the respondent Authority from "canceling the plots in question allotted in favour of the complainants till further orders". This was vide order dated 25th March, 1997.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued under Sections 10(a)(i), 36-A, 36-B(a) and Section 37 of the Act, the respondent objected to the recognition of the complainant No. 1 (common to all the petitioners) on the ground that it has no locus standi in the matter, the Association being not a registered Consumer Association within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Act.
6. It is stated that the complainants neither made payments as demanded nor approached the respondent Authority for refunding the amount. They were well within their rights to pay the entire amount within a period of one month avoiding interest chargeable on the instalments. The respondent had neither received legal notice as stated to have been sent nor was contacted personally. For non-payment of the instalments, the plots were liable to be cancelled in terms of Clause 3.60 of the Brochure. Mere allegations of unfair/restrictive trade practices are not sufficient till established, contended the respondent.
7. After completion of pleadings the following common issues were framed in all the three cases :
(1) Whether the respondent has indulged in or is indulging in unfair and restrictive trade practices listed in the NOE ?
(2) Whether the alleged unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest, to the interest of the complainants and to consumer generally ?
(3) Whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are not prejudicial to public interest ?
(4) Whether the complainants have suffered loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair and restrictive trade practices ?
(5) Relief.
The complainants placed on records their affidavits of evidence alongwith copies of letters of reservations issued by the respondent Authority as well acknowledgement receipt of registration amounts having been paid. No witnesses were produced for their oral evidence. The witness of the respondent Authority was however cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the complainants.
8. The objection raised by the respondent against the complainant No. 1 was accepted by the learned Advocate for the complainants. Otherwise too there being no specific grievance raised by it, its name is deleted from the array of the parties.
9. I have heard the arguments and have also perused the documents placed on records. When a Scheme is launched by a public Authority like Ghaziabad Development Authority and that too for the public including the economically weaker section, one expects a fair deal at its end. Issue of brochures covering almost all areas of the project gives one an impression that the project in hand would commence as soon as the formalities are completed. The people who subscribe to such Schemes are the ones who have limited resources and can be put to hardship on account of unexplainable/unavoidable delay in the development of the project. While deciding the consumers right this aspect cannot be lost sight of. At the same time, the terms and conditions to which the parties have agreed to adhere to can also not be ignored.
10. In the present case, the complainants have voluntarily applied for plots under Indira Puram Priyadarshini Scheme. They have also paid the registration amounts as acknowledged by the respondent Authority. This was after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the Brochure. As per the latter the complainants could even after registration withdraw from the Scheme. Instead objections were raised against the policy of the respondent Authority in respect of charging interest @ 15% as stipulated in Clause No. 3.50 under the head interest "payable on instalments". The deal in question was not forced on the complainants. The complainants could have declined to accept the offer as provided in Clause 10.10 of the Brochure which reads as under :
"10.10 In case the applicant wishes to withdraw his registration amount prior to draw of lottery for reservation, he can obtain the same, without any deduction but without interest. However, non-withdrawal will be permissible upto 3 months from the close of registration except in very special circumstances with the permission of the Vice Chairman, GD."
The objection, if any should have been directly taken up with the respondent and that too immediately after the receipt of the brochure where the terms and conditions in detail are listed. Part payment made that too in respect of the registration amount does not vest the complainants with the legal right to acquire the plots. No case law has also been cited to show that even the issue of letter regarding the reservation of the plot vests indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment of the plot and that too at the cost the allottee wants to pay. As indicated in the letter of reservation, the allotment is subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the brochure. It was open to the complainants to get their registration amounts with interest depending on the period the amounts were retained by the respondent. The possession of the plots is however subjected to payment of the full consideration as laid down in Clause 13.10 of the brochure.
11. While the respondent has categorically denied that the land was not developed, no evidence has been placed on record to show that at the time of issue of the letter of reservation or at the time when the plots were to be handed over, these were not developed. It is a common knowledge that Self-Finance Scheme on the hire/purchase basis does carry some cost in the form of interest. This is also true in respect of the financial institutions which provide the facility for payment of loans on instalment basis. The public Authority like the respondent having no funds of its own finances the various Schemes launched for the public from the amounts received from the allottees and the funds raised from the financial institutions, if need so arises.
12. In the circumstances and the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the complainants have failed to establish that the respondent Authority has adopted the unfair/ restrictive trade practices within the meaning of provisions of Sections 36-A and 2(o)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Notices of Enquiries issued in all the three cases against the respondent Authority deserve and are directed to be discharged.
13. The injunction restraining the respondent Authority from cancelling the plots reserved for the complainants, which dates back to the year 1997 stands vacated, in view of the Notices of Enquiries having been discharged.