GURDEV SINGH NAGI vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SHRI Gurdev Singh Nagi filed an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) seeking compensation from Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi. A notice was issued by the Commission to the respondent on 20th August, 1996.

THE facts of the case as contained in the compensation application can be briefly summarized as below : THE applicant constructed a building on plot No. C-342, Yojana Vihar and applied to the Delhi Development Authority on 7.6.1993 for conversion of the same property from lease-hold to free-hold. As per the scheme for such a conversion the applicant paid the first installment of conversion charges of Rs. 2,873/- alongwith the application. THE applicant also submitted a no-objection certificate on 10.11.1993 from the Government to whom the property was mortgaged. THE DDA asked the applicant on 17.2.1994 to deposit the second installment of Rs. 2,873/-. THE applicant deposited the same with the State Bank of India on 9.9.1994 and sent the challan alongwith his letter dated 9.9.1994. THE grievance of the applicant is that thereafter he sent several reminders to the DDA and also personally visited the office of the respondent but till the date of filing of the compensation application the respondent has not effected the conversion letter. The respondent, DDA filed a reply to the compensation application in which the following main points have been made. It has taken the stand that the complainant who adopted to pay the conversion charges in installments did not intimate the respondent regarding the deposit of the second and final installments. It was only after the compensation application was filed, the information about the deposit of the second installment was received and the Conveyance Deed was issued to the applicant on 21.11.1996. The respondent denied that it indulged in any unfair trade practice.

After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in unfair trade practice as alleged in the application of the applicant? 2. If the above issue is in favour of the applicant, the relief thereof?

THE applicant filed an affidavit of evidence and the respondent did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine him. Though the respondent''s evidence was initially closed for default on its part, the order was recalled later and the respondent was allowed to file its counter affidavit of evidence. We gave a hearing to Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Nilima Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. We have gone through the records of the case, evidences adduced and also given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the Advocates. Our findings are give below : We find that the applicant had paid the second and final installment of conversion charges on 9.9.1994. In his affidavit the applicant has stated that the challan in original alongwith the forwarding letter was deposited at the DDA counter on the same day. The grievance of the complainant is that despite large number of representations and personal visit to the office of the respondent the Conveyance Deed was not given to the applicant. According to the respondent, the second installment of the conversion charges was to be paid by the applicant on 7.6.1994 and the applicant defaulted and paid it only on 9.9.1994. The applicant furnished the information relating to the payment of the second and final installments only on 17.10.1996 through a letter after filing the compensation application with the Commission. The respondent denied that the applicant made any efforts prior to this with the respondent to get the Conveyance Deed. We find that while the applicant has not produced any evidence to support this assertion to this effect, his statement on affidavit on this has also not been challenged by the respondent in as much as it failed to avail of the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant. The respondent, however, attended to the application after receipt of the letters dated 7.10.1996 and issued the Conveyance papers to the applicant on 21.11.1996. It is not the case of the respondent that the second and final installments were not paid on 7.6.1994 but according to it the applicant had not given specific intimation about the payment. The facts of the case reveal that since the original challan was to be deposited with the respondent, there was no coordination within the respondent''s office to link payments with relevant cases.

WHILE the facts and the circumstances of the case clearly point out that the application of the applicant for conversion of lease-hold property into free-hold has not been dealt promptly, we cannot hold that the respondent has indulged in any unfair trade practice as made out by the applicant. The deficiency in service noticed in this case and the extent of delay which has taken place do not justify the conclusion that the DDA has indulged in unfair trade practice as defined in the Act to warrant the issue of a "cease and desist" order. We, however, expect that the respondent will take note of the facts of this case to ensure that the procedure for issue of Conveyance Deeds is streamlined and the applicants for the same are attended to promptly. The applicant in his affidavit has pointed out that while writing the letter dated 17.10.1996 the petitioner had also asked the respondent to allow a rebate of 25 per cent to which the petitioner was entitled in respect of the conversion charges paid by him. The respondent in its affidavit has pointed out that only on 17.10.1996 the applicant for the first time requested for the rebate. In the counter-affidavit the respondent has also stated that a sum of Rs. 1,359/-. was due to the applicant as refund and the same was being processed. We direct the respondent to ensure that the correct amount of refund due to the applicant is calculated and the same dispatched to the applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, if not already done. In view of the fact that we have not held the respondent guilty of the charge of indulging in unfair trade practices, the applicant is not entitled for any compensation under Section 12B of the Act. The compensation application is accordingly dismissed with the direction as in the previous paragraph. There is no order as to costs. Application dismissed.