Case No. 02/2013. Case: Kuldeep Singh Vs Pal Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 02/2013
JudgesAshok Chawla, (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(4), 26(1), 26(2), 4
Citation2013 CompLR 527 (CCI)
Judgement DateApril 30, 2013
CourtCompetition Commision of India


  1. The OP launched a residential flat complex, named, 'Pal Aqua Polis' in sector 70-A, Gurgaon, Haryana. The informant booked a residential flat in the said project on 31-03-2007 by depositing Rs. 3,50,000/-. The informant alleged that the OP abused its dominant position by imposing unfair and one sided conditions on the informant through agreement entered between them. As per information, on 26.09.2008, the OP allotted a flat to the informant in Block B with super area 1304 sq.ft. Later, the OP changed project layout plan& in new layout plan block D replaced Block B. To retain flat on similar location, the informant requested a change in allotment and flat D-102 was allotted to him on 25.04.2011. On 01.10.2011, the builder suggested the informant to apply for allotment of flat in block E, due to non-availability of earlier allotted flat D-102. The informant was suggested to accept a larger size flat. With no other choice informant acted as advised and a new flat E-301 with super area 1690 sq.ft was allotted on 01.10.2011. Since super area of new allotted flat was 386 Sq. Ft., more than that of previously allotted flat, the total price of new allotted flat was also Rs. 12, 24,500/- more than that of previously allotted flat. The OP thus increased financial burden on the informant.

  2. The informant alleged that he first booked the flat on 31.03.2007 and till 05.06.2012 only the foundation work was completed. The informant noticed during visits to project site that only 12 to 15 workers were working at the site. The construction work was in progress at a snail's pace and no tentative date of completion of the said project was communicated to the informant till the date of filing of this information.

  3. The informant further alleged that despite being forced to accept a larger size flat with additional cost burden of Rs. 12,24,500/-, the OP further abused its position by asking him to payinterest on the extra 'Due Amount' because of increased total price from (sic).05.2007. At the most, these calculations could have been from the date of allotment of the new flat. This conduct of the OP was alleged to be unfair.

  4. The informant, therefore prayed that the OP should be directed to enter into a flat Buyer's Agreement with the informant and the interest on due payments should start from the date of signing of Buyer's Agreement only. It was also prayed that a 'Compensation Clause' should be provided inflat Buyer's Agreement for the benefitto...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT