Summary
Flat buyers alleged unfair trade practice in delayed possession and additional charges. The Court upheld dismissal of their MRTP complaint: the contractual provisions, disclosed charges and conduct did not establish the alleged misrepresentation, and compensation under that statute was unavailable without the requisite trade practice. Nonetheless, in the interests of justice it directed possession of each flat on payment of ₹25 lakh, subject to specified deadlines.
Issues
- Whether the delay and additional charges established unfair trade practice on the record.
- Whether compensation or other relief could follow notwithstanding rejection of the MRTP allegations.
Provisions considered
- Section 36A, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969The Court required proof of misleading or deceptive trade practice, assessed against the agreement and circumstances, rather than treating delay alone as sufficient. (¶¶ 11, 13-21)
- Section 12B, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969Statutory compensation depended on loss or damage resulting from a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice, which the buyers had not established. (¶ 24)
Held
- Delay beyond three years was admitted, but the agreement allowed reasonable extensions and the buyers neither invoked termination for delay nor gave notice making time essential. On the pleadings and conduct in this case, the alleged misrepresentation and unfair trade practice were not substantiated. (¶ 17-20)
- The extra charges related to contractual provisions and disclosed improvements and facilities. The builder had absorbed later escalation and revision costs, and the buyers had initially paid instalments towards extras. The allegation of a calculated undisclosed price manipulation was rejected on these facts. (¶ 21)
- Authorities concerning unconscionable terms and consumer compensation did not establish the relief sought here. The buyers identified no particular clause warranting invalidation and principally sought possession without the outstanding price and extras. Their failure to establish the requisite trade practice also defeated compensation under Section 12B. (¶ 22-24)
- Despite upholding the Commission’s order, the Court fashioned final relief in the interests of justice: the buyers were to pay ₹25 lakh for each flat within four weeks, and the builder was to deliver possession within one week after payment. The appeal was disposed of on those terms. (¶ 25-27)
Result
Appeal disposed of; MRTP rejection upheld, but possession directed on payment of ₹25 lakh per flat within four weeks, with handover within one week thereafter.