w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Surendra M. Mittal v/s Skipper Builders Pvt. Ltd.

    Compensation Application No. 422 of 1997
    Decided On, 01 July 1999
    At, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission New Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. S.K. PARTHASARATHY
    By, MEMBER
    For the Applicant: In Person. For the Respondent: None.


Judgment Text
S.K. Parthasarathy, Member

1. This disposes of an application filed by Shri Surendra M. Mittal, New Delhi under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), claiming compensation from the respondent-Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the latter indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practice.

2. In his compensation application the applicant has stated that he paid the respondent Rs. 10,000/- on 30.3.1992 as booking amount for buying an apartment in response to an advertisement of the respondent appearing in ‘Hindustan Times’. The respondent kept on assuring that draw for allotment would take place. Subsequently, the respondent stated that it would either make a firm allotment or refund the booking amount with interest. Later the cheques issued by the respondent for refund bounced and in its letter dated 18.8.1994 the applicant was informed that he would get his money back within a month’s time. Since the respondent did not file the reply to the notice of the compensation application and also failed to appear before the Commission, the proceedings against it were declared ex-parte on 21.5.1998. Subsequently, the applicant also filed his affidavit of evidence reiterating the averments made in the compensation application.

3. I gave a hearing to the applicant who advanced ex-parte arguments. He also stated that enquiries made by him showed that the respondent Company has not gone into liquidation.

4. Since the respondent did not file any reply and has not appeared before the Commission the case pleaded by the applicant will have to be accepted in accordance with the provisions contained in Order VIII Rules 5 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The action of the respondent in offering built up flats and not fulfilling the offer as well as not refunding to the registrants who had paid the booking money constitute an unfair trade practice and the applicant in this case has suffered loss and damage due to this. The applicant is, therefore, entitled for compensation.

5. In the premises, I direct that the respondent shall refund the earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- paid by the applicant along wi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
th 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of refund within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent shall file an affidavit of compliance within four weeks thereafter. C.A. disposed of.
O R