TAJINDER SINGH JOLLY vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

TODAY the case is fixed for final hearing. There is no representation or appearance on behalf of the respondent. There is no request also for an adjournment. We have heard the applicant who is present in person and perused the Court record. The complaint of the applicant is that he applied for a flat under the Special Self-Financing Scheme-II and was allotted Flat No. 130 in Desh Bandhu Apartments in January, 1985. The total cost of the flat intimated to him was Rs. 1,46,000/- inclusive of the cost of scooter garage. Our attention has been drawn to the Brochure issued by the respondent, inviting application from 1.3.1982 to 31.3.1982 for the Special Self-Financing Schemes in different residential areas.

THE applicant''s grievance is that he was allotted a flat under above mentioned scheme and the cost of the scooter garage was included in the cost of the flat. In support of his above contention, he has drawn our attention to Condition No. 3 contained in the Brochure wherein it is specifically mentioned that "Scooter garage where available will be allotted as part of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor flats for which the cost has already been included in the cost of the flat". THE applicant''s case is that he was allotted a flat on 2nd floor and, therefore, he is entitled to allotment of the scooter garage without any extra charges. The respondent in the affidavit of evidence tendered by Shri B.N. Singh, Director-1 (Housing) has not disputed the facts of the case enumerated above except that it has been contended therein that the demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the scooter garage was issued to the applicant vide letter No. F-48(11)82/SFS dated 21.3.1985 and the fact that a separate allotment letter for scooter garage was issued goes to show that cost of the same was worked out separately and was not included in the cost of the flat. This averment of the respondent does not appear to be tenable as it is not borne out by the relevant condition outlined in the Brochure which clearly and unmistakably stipulates that scooter garages wherever available will be allotted to the allottees of flats and cost of the same is included in the cost of the flat. It is not explained by the respondent as to how the conditions pertaining to the cost and allotment of the scooter garage can be ignored or lost sight of particularly when allotment and cost of the flats and scooter garage is governed by the terms and conditions spelt out in the Brochure and applications for allotment of flats under the Special Self-Financing Scheme were invited in the light of the Brochure issued by the respondent. The demand for payment of the cost of the scooter garage contrary to the representation made by the respondent in the Brochure tantamounts to a false representation and constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of section 36A(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief). In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices.

The other objection taken by the respondent in the above noted affidavit of evidence is that the present application under Section 12B of the Act is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1985 whereas the present compensation application was filed on 6.7.1999. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has given an application for condonation of delay and keeping in view the circumstances explained in the application, we condone the delay. Even otherwise, the respondent being an authority set up by the Union Government is expected to be just and fair to its allottees and ask for payments strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Brochure and not take shelter behind technical objections. We have already referred to the relevant condition in the Brochure where it has been mentioned that the cost of the scooter garage will be included in the cost of the flat and in the present case, this condition is applicable and governs the allotment of scooter garage. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the respondent to refund the cost of the scooter garage paid by the applicant and also file an affidavit by way of compliance within six weeks. We don''t think it is necessary to award any compensation as no loss or damage can be said to have been suffered by the applicant. The present compensation application stands disposed of accordingly. C.A. disposed of.