9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein. The Competition Commission of India ('CCI') is the Respondent No. 2 herein. 3. The Appellants submitted that they, along with similar other applicants, were allotted Economically Weaker Section (EWS) flats in the Pratap Vihar residential housing scheme announced by the Respondent in 2008, with the final cost of the flat stated as Rs. 2,00,000. The Appellant stated that as per paragraph 4 of the allotment letter, the Respondent promised to deliver possession of the flats by the end of 2009 upon payment of 20% of the final cost, which allottees, including the Appellants, duly paid. The Appellant stated that despite the passage of so many years, possession of flats were delayed abnormally resulting in severe losses and mental agony for the Appellants. 4. The Appellants further contended that by abusing his dominant position, the Respondent No. 1, despite having failed to deliver possession of flats on time at fixed price as promised, the Respondent No. 1 issued a common letter to all allottees, including the Appellants, indicating that due to project delays, possession would be available by 31.03.2016, and demanded a revised final cost of Rs. 7,00,000 instead of Rs. 2,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting these as misleading and mischievous. 12. The Respondent No. 1 elaborated that this appeal concerns an order issued by the CCI, Respondent No. 2 herein, on 28.02.2018, under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Respondent No. 1. 13. Respondent No. 1 stated that GDA was constituted under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ("Planning and Development Act") and is empowered to acquire, hold, and dispose of land and engage in development activities within Ghaziabad. In 2008, Respondent No. 1 launched the Pratap Vihar Residential Housing Scheme for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), through which flats were allotted via a lottery draw in 2009 at a cost of Rs. 2,00,000 each. However, in 2015, Respondent No. 1 issued letters to allottees requesting payment of Rs. 7,00,000 as the revised sale price for the flats due to an assessment of actual construction costs. 14. The Respondent No. 1 stated that Mr. Satyendra Singh (Appellant No. 1) filed an Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act against Respondent No. 1, alleging unfair practices and abuse of dominant position. In response to these allegations, Respondent No. 2 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to 'cease and desist'. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the Impugned Order and the payment of the penalty amount imposed through the Impugned Order was stayed by this Appellate Tribunal, subject to the deposit of 10% of the penalty amount by Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No.1 confirmed that he deposited 10% penalty, thus complied penalty as per stipulated orders. The Respondent No.1 also submitted that the 'cease and desist' order of Respondent No. 2 continues to be in force and that Respondent No. 1 is in due compliance with the operative part of the Impugned Order. 24. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Appellants are not entitled to compensation in terms of section 42A of the Competition Act, as there has been no contravention of any orders or directions of the CCI by the Respondent No. 1 and therefore section 42A of the Competition Act does not bear any application in this case. 25. The Respondent No. 1 submitted with respect to the amount of compensation claimed under the Application, no computation, documents or information in support of such claims have been adduced by the Appellants in furtherance of the claims made under this Application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst any findings of the Commission or under section 42A or under sub-section(2) of section 53Q of the Act, and to pass an order for the recovery of compensation from any enterprise for any loss or damage shown to have been suffered, by the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any enterprise or any person as a result of any contravention of the provisions of Chapter II, having been committed by enterprise." (Emphasis Supplied) 29. From above, we note that the compensation is payable in case of contravention of order of CCI. Section 42 A provides that any person may make an application to the Appellate Authority for an order of recovery of compensation from any enterprises for any loss or damage shown to have been suffered by such person as a result of said enterprise violating directions issued by CCI. 30. We note that in the Impugned Order dated 02.02.2027, the CCI gave two orders i.e., "The Commission directs the OP to cease and desist from indulging in such abusive conduct which has been found to be in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) r/w Section 4(1) of the Competition Act." 31. CCI also gave order regarding payment of penalty as contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 39. We note that the eligibility criteria for the applicant to apply for EWS flats was annual earnings ceilings of Rs. 25,000 each. We find it rather strange that person whose annual income is Rs. 25,000 is claiming monthly payment of rent of Rs. 10,000/- i.e., almost four times of his earning. We put a specific query regarding the same to the Appellants who could not furnish any satisfactory reply. We also note that no documentations or evidence of all claims including rental, damage, deposits, litigations etc, have been furnished by the Appellants in the appeal as well as during the pleadings before us. 40. The claims, on face of it do not seems to be convincing. Be that as it may, we have already noted in earlier that that the compensation is due only if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
