9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- for the period from 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2018 which continue till payments. Similarly, the Appellants have claimed the damage for inconvenience, mental, physical loss, expectancy loss amounting to Rs. 25,50,000/- each. Another claim has been made regarding interest on payment deposited amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- each and finally litigation and out of pocket expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. Thus, the total compensation by each is Rs. 42,42,000/- which continues till payment is made by the Appellants - the eligibility criteria for the applicant to apply for EWS flats was annual earnings ceilings of Rs. 25,000 each. The claims, on face of it do not seems to be convincing. Be that as it may, it is already noted in earlier that that the compensation is due only if CCI orders have been violated by the Respondent No. 1 which is not the case here. As such, there are no merit in the appeal. It is observed that after giving consent for enhancement of cost of flats, it does not lie in the mount of the Appellants to challenge the same. This does not help the cause of the Appellants, despite CCI holding that Respondent No. 1 was involved in abusive conduct as dominant player in relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Appellants asserted that they were being compelled to consent to these revised terms due to the coercive and abusive conduct of the Respondent No. 1 and to protect their interests and prevent arbitrary cancellation of their flats, they decided to approach the CCI regarding this sudden and abusive action by the Respondent No. 1, consequently, on 28.02.2018, the CCI passed a detailed Impugned Order against the Respondent No. 1. 6. It is the case of the Appellants that they have suffered actual losses and are entitled to claim damages due to the Respondent No. 1 failure to deliver possession of their flats despite CCI's orders to cease and desist from such conduct. 7. The Appellants submitted that the penalty imposed on the Respondent No.1 should be recovered and paid to them as compensation for their quantified losses as of June 2018 which still continue at the same rate until actual payment is made by the Respondent No. 1 as they suffered due to the Respondent No. 1 abusive conduct, therefore their applications for compensation is maintainable under Section 53N(4) of the Competition Act, 2002. 8. The Appellants also highlighted that following the complaint filed by one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report submitted on September 4, 2017. 15. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that they have appealed against the Impugned Order (Competition Appeal No. 26 of 2018) before this Appellate Tribunal and complied with its directive on May 10, 2018, by depositing 10% of the penalty amount. 16. The Respondent No. 1 clarified that out of total of 348 flats under the Scheme, 114 flats are ready for possession with plans for additional flats to be available within three months. 17. The Respondent No. 1 highlighted that increase in costs was not arbitrary but based on actual construction assessments and compliance with applicable Costing Guidelines established by Uttar Pradesh authorities. 18. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that pending adjudication by this Appellate Tribunal regarding whether there was an abuse of dominant position by Respondent No. 1, no determination regarding compensation should be made at this stage. 19. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Application does not comply with Regulation 20 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Procedure for Appeals & Applications) Regulations, 2010, as it fails to specify the exact amount, rate of interest, or any other amount being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual basis. Furthermore, as required under the provision of Section 53N of the Competition Act, the Appellants have not furnished any claim with respect to loss or damage alleged to be suffered by the Appellants. 26. The Respondent No. 1 stated that in the Application, there has been no reliance on any documentary evidence in furtherance of the claim for compensation and the computation of damages in the Application is remote without any casual link to the alleged abuse of dominant position by Respondent No. 1 and the computation of compensation under the Application is remote and no justification has been put forth in support of such claim. 27. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that consent letter was sent to the Appellants and in reply to the same letter, consent was given by the Appellants to the Respondent. In view of the consent given, compensation request made by the Appellants is unsustainable. Findings 28. Since the compensation has been sought in terms of Section 42(A) and Section 53N(1), we will consider the same which reads as under: - Section 42 (A) - "42A. Compensation in case of contravention of orders of Commission-Without prejudice to the provisions of this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crore sixty thousand seven hundred ninety four only) calculated at the rate of 5% of the average turnover/ receipts of the OP generated from the provision of services for development and sale of low cost residential flats under affordable housing schemes for the economically weaker sections for the preceding three financial years is hereby imposed on the OP." (Emphasis Supplied) 32. Thus, there were only two directions to the Respondent No. 1 by CCI i.e., regarding 'cease and desist' order and payment of penalty. 33. We note that the Appellant has conceded categorically during hearing that he has not violated cease and desist order of the CCI and is complying the same. Similarly, we note that the CCI had imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,00,60,794/- on the Appellant and the Appellant during the appeal before us has deposited 10% of such penalty vide FD No. 078120 and consequently this Appellate Tribunal gave stay in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Respondent No. 1 complied penalty provisions of the CCI contained in the Impugned Order. Thus, there is no violation of the Impugned Order passed by the CCI. 34. We observe that any person may file appeal for payment of compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
