ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The applicant has filed an application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for compensation. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement in the year 1989 for building flats known as ‘Vaishali Apartments Scheme No. 547’. The applicant applied for allotment of Deluxe Type ‘A’ in the said scheme and also deposited a sum of Rs. 46,720/- vide form No. 3429 on 15.3.1989 in Vijaya Bank for purpose of registration with Ghaziabad Development Authority. The applicant continued to make payments in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified in the advertisement and incorporated in the brochure issued by the respondent. It is next contended by the applicant that the respondent instead of handing over possession of flat sent a letter bearing No. 00133/547 61J 0089/003429/94 dated 15th August, 1994 stating that the applicant was allotted flat No. SARYU/17 under hire purchase payment. The respondent authority had increased cost of flat so allotted to the applicant to Rs. 7,07,400/- tentatively. The payment schedule is referred as below :
2. The applicant was informed in the same letter that possession of the apartment would likely be given during the first quarter of 1995. Instead of offering the possession of the apartment to the applicant the respondent intimated her that the price of the flat was increased from Rs. 7,07,400/- to Rs. 8,86,000/-and the applicant called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,30,240/- and RS. 4,196/- on account of lease rent. The said amount was also deposited vide Demand Draft No. 677096 dated 3rd September, 1997 drawn on Vijaya Bank. The applicant thereafter completed all the formalities for getting possession of the apartment but received another letter wherein it was stated that he was allotted Yamuna/17 instead of SARYU/17 and so reason for the change was stated by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that a sum of Rs. 7,24,067.75 has since been paid to the respondent on different dates starting from 15.3.1989 and ending with 25th of July, 1998. The details of payment made the respondent authority including the photostat copies of the receipts have already been placed on record.
3. The respondent filed its reply and the following issues were framed on 17.8.2001 :
“1. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the Compensation Application ?
2. Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices ?
3. Relief, if any.”
4. The applicant as well as the respondent led their respective evidence. The respondent has not yet handed over possession of the flat to the applicant though it is contended that an offer for the same has been made. The following order was passed on 21st January, 2003 wherein the respondent was directed to show alternative flats to the applicant:
“The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is willing to show alternative flats to the applicant and she may contact Mr. C.P. Panday, Joint Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority who will arrange for the applicant to visit alternative flats. List on 2nd May, 2003.”
5. The above said order was not complied with and we passed a further order on 14th August, 2003 which reads as under :
“The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the order passed by this Commission on 21st January, 2003 has not yet been complied with on the pretext that Mr. C.P. Panday, Joint Secretary, Ghaziabad Development Authority who was deputed to show alternative flats to the applicant has since been transferred. We do not find this proper and just ground for not complying with the order. The applicant it is contended is no more interested in allotment of flat as she is already 80 years of age and is not in a position to repeatedly request the respondent in this regard and she claims refund of the amount which is stated to be Rs. 7,24,067.75 with interest and costs. The learned Counsel for the respondent will take instructions in this regard before the next date. List the matter of final arguments on 8th October, 2003.”
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as perused the evidence which has been placed on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent authority twice changed the allotment which was made in favour of the applicant and did not hand over possession of the flat to her till date. The applicant is 80 years of age and is not in a position to wait further and once again start the process of seeing the flats again to find out if the same are habitable and suit her requirement. The learned Counsel for the applicant states that the respondent is willing to refund the amount in terms of the brochure. We find that the respondent is itself to blame for the inordinate delay in handing over possession and has repeatedly changed the allotment and offered different alternative flats to the applicant. The possession was also assured to be given within a period of two years but no progress was made in this regard though the initial booking took place in the year 1989.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the respondent authority to refund the amount of Rs. 7,24,067.75 to the applicant with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of each deposit till the date of payment. The applicant shall also be entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs. 5,000/-. The applicant shall surrender the original receipts to the respondent within a period of four weeks. The respondent shall comply with this order within six weeks thereafter and file an affidavit of compliance.