RAM BHAROSE LAL vs Trilok Singh

THESE two applications filed on behalf of the applicants, namely Shri Ram Bharose Lal (C.A. No. 114/96) and Shri Kamlesh Kumar (C.A. No. 287/96) against the same respondents, i.e. Shri Trilok Singh, Managing Director, G.L.F. Co. (P) Ltd. are based on the same set of facts and, therefore, taken together for disposal by a common order.

THE common facts are that in response to the advertisement given in the various newspapers including THE Hindustan Times, both the applicants applied for the advertised free hold plots in a colony, namely Sant City. Payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made by Shri Ram Bharose and Rs. 33,072/- by Shri Kamlesh Kumar towards the purchase of plots. Shri Ram Bharose was allotted plot No. 108 measuring 200 sq. yds. at rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. yd. and Shri Kamlesh Kumar was allotted plot No. 34 measuring 106 sq. yds. at the rate of Rs. 315/- per sq. yd. (different rates mentioned in the receipts). Both the plots were registered in the names of the respective parties. Subsequently the applicants came across a notification issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA for short) stating that no private coloniser is allowed to develop colony in the district of Ghaziabad. On confirmation from the G.D.A. that the aforesaid colony was not sanctioned, the applicants approached the respondent for refund of their amount as deposited with it. THE respondent neither paid the amount as demanded nor gave any assurance for the refund of the same. In the circumstances the applicants approached the Commission charging the respondent for having indulged in the unfair trade practices falling within the meaning of Section 36A(1)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the MRTP Act. In their respective applications compensation was demanded in regard to the initial amount paid alongwith interest at the rate of 18% and the reimbursement of the legal expenses to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. On receipt of the applications, the notices were sent to the respondent which were received back unserved with a postal remark ''left''. Subsequently, as per directions of the Commission the notices were duly published in the newspapers, namely The National Herald and The Veer Arjun on 20.1.1998. As none responded on behalf of the respondent the cases were set ex parte against it. The final arguments were heard. Both the applicants relied on the facts as mentioned in the applications supported by the photo-stat/original copies of the Scheme ''Plot Purchase Scheme'' in ''Sant City''. Shri Ram Bharose furnished photo-stat copies of the receipts issued by the respondent which totalled up to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Shri Kamlesh Kumar on the other hand furnished the original receipt Nos. 146 dated 26.6.1988 and 155 dated 27.6.1988 for having paid a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. In application however he claimed to have paid Rs. 33,072/-.

Admittedly, both the applicants were lured by the advertisement in the national newspapers regarding purchase of free hold plots advertised on behalf of the respondent Company. The payments were also made as per the terms of the payments mentioned in the brochure issued in this regard. It appears that respective plots were also registered in the names of both the parties as evident from the photo-stat copies of the registered deed (in the case of Shri Ram Bharose) available on record. As per photo-stat copy of the notification of the GDA, available on record, the public was cautioned against the registration of the plots falling under certain schemes which were not sanctioned by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The Authority also confirmed that no sanction was granted to the colony by the names of ''Sant City''.

THESE facts clearly show that the respondent made a false representation in regard to the proposed Sant City. It also made false promises in regard to the availability of basic services and urban facilities, namely lighting, clean drinking water, drains, sewerage, roads etc. Having duped the applicants by false promises, the respondent''s case clearly falls under Section 36A(1)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the MRTP Act. In the absence of any defence on the part of the respondent the charges levelled against it are deemed to have been established. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to refund the amounts paid by the applicants as initial deposit with 18% interest from the date of deposit and also Rs. 3,000/- in each case as legal expenses. This is in line with the order passed by the Commission in the cases of Shri P.V. Gulati (C.A. No. 115/96), Shri Ambika Prasad (C.A. No. 291/96) and Shri Munna Lal (C.A. No. 286/96). The respondent is further directed to report compliance of this order within a period of six weeks of the date of pronouncement of this order. A copy of this order may be placed on each of the two case files. C.A. disposed of.