NARESH CHANDRA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE applicant/complainant has moved the present application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act) to claim refund of excess service charges recovered by the respondent. He has also charged the respondent with the adoption of and indulgence in unfair/ restrictive trade practices as defined under the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant/ complainant was allotted flat No. 4053 in Pocket -IV, Sector-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi at a cost of Rs. 6,77,800/- on cash down basis as per allotment letter dated 1.6.1993. THE aforementioned letter of allotment inter alia stipulated in Clause 7 that the applicant/ complainant will have to pay service charges at the rate of Rs. 6,877.50 per annum till the services of the scheme are handed over to the MCD. It has been stated by the respondent that he accepted these terms and conditions in good faith and complied with them accordingly. Later, however, the applicant discovered that the allottee of a similar flat No. 4055 in the same pocket/sector and under the same scheme was required to pay service charges at the rate of Rs. 1,007.50 per annum only. THE applicant/complainant brought this discrepancy to the notice of the Financial Adviser (Housing) vide letter dated 17th/20th June, 1994. In reply thereto, the respondent furnished a comparative statement giving details of standard rent and service charges pertaining to both the flats namely flat No. 4053 of the applicant/complainant and flat No. 4055 of Mrs. Vatsala Devi. On further enquiries, the respondent also explained the rationale behind charging differential rate of ground rent and service charges from different allottees.

IN its letter dated 30th January, 1995, the respondent has stated that the ground rent and the service charges levied in respect of the aforementioned two flats are different because of differences in their cost of land. IN tthe case of flat No. 4053 (the complainant's flat) cost of the land is Rs. 2,50,800/- whereas in the case of flat No. 4055, the cost of the land is Rs. 40,300/-. It has been further stated in the said letter that the difference in the cost of land in the case of the complainant is due to "Out-of-Turn Allotment" (OTA in brief) without registration in the office of the respondent. IN the case of the applicant/ complainant, the rate of land prevailing at the time of OTA was taken as the cost of land while in other case of Mrs. Vatsala Devi, who was already registered with the office of the respondent, the land rate in respect of her flat No. 4055 was less because it was the land rate prevailing during 1988. It has also been pointed out in the said letter that the ground rent and the service charges are calculated at a uniform rate of 2.5% of the premium of the land and this mode of calculation was followed in both the cases. The Notice of Compensation under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent. However, the respondent failed to file its reply despite adequate opportunities given and hence the respondent was set ex parte with liberty to participate in the arguments. Final arguments addressed by Mr. O.P. Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. B. Devasekharan, Advocate for the respondent were heard on 23.5.2000. The synopsis of arguments have also been filed on behalf of both the parties.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicant/complainant that by levying service charges at different rates for the two adjoining flats which are similar in size and fall under the same scheme amounts to monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices. Learned Advocate for the applicant/complainant further alleged that the rates at which service charges are levied on the allottees of different flats, are arbitrary, whimsical and discriminatory as they are without any rationale basis. It has also been argued that the respondent does not have any claim to the service charges because no services worth the name except sweeping are rendered by the respondent. He summed up his arguments with the prayer that the respondent may be directed to refund the excess service charges and also restrained from recovering the same at a higher rate from the applicant/complainant in future. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the applicant/complainant cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD, reported in 1985 Rajdhani Law Reporter 1 (SC) and Dewan Dault Rai v. NDMC, reported in 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter 54 (SC).

LEARNED Advocate for the respondent gave comparative details of the service charges levied in respect of the two flats as also details of land premium, rate of land and mode of calculation, etc. to explain the rationale behind the levying of service charges at different rates. He also invited our attention to the relevant Resolution No. 9 of 23.1.1985 and No. 53 of May, 1991. It was further submitted that for the service charges levied on the allottees, the respondent is rendering a host of services for their welfare such as maintenance of roads, maintenance of street lights, maintenance of water lines, maintenance of parks, maintenance of community halls etc. We have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as the submissions made by the Advocates for the parties. From the facts of the case which are self-explanatory, we do not find any discrimination being practised by the respondent in levying standard rent and service charges. These charges are uniformly calculated at the rate of 2.5% of the cost of land. The cost of the land, however, varies from allottee to allottee depending on whether the allottee is registered with the respondent office or he/she is one of those who were allotted flats under the Out-of- Turn Allotment Scheme. In the instant case, we find that the applicant/ complainant was allotted flat under the OTA scheme whereas the allottee with whom he has tried to compare the service charges was an allottee already registered with the office of the respondent. This fact is enough to explain the difference in the service charges levied by the respondent Authority. Similarly, there is nothing objectionable in the decision to take the cost of land in one case as the actual cost of land and in the other case at the price prevailing at the time of out-of-turn allotment becuse the two modes of allotment are entirely different. In one case, the allottee has to first get himself registered with the respondent and then wait for his turn for allotment which may take quite some time while in other case, the allotment is out-of-turn.

IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any substance in the sweeping allegation that the respondent is guilty of indulgence in the monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices. We further find that there is a rational basis for levying service charges on different allottees at different rates and it does not have an element of discrimination in it as alleged by the applicant/complainant. IN view of this, the compensation application of the applicant/complainant fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Compensation Application dismissed.