R.P. Sethi, J.

1. The appellant applied for the allotment of a plot measuring 350 sq. mtrs. under the Scheme of "Indrapuram" and paid registration amount of Rs. 42,000- on 28th July, 1989. A further sum of Rs. 33,000- being the reservation amount was paid and plot allotted to him vide letter of the respondent-authority dated 5th November, 1999. The first instalment of Rs. 76,125- was paid by him on 16th August, 1990. Further instalments during 1990-95 were not paid allegedly on the ground that the respondent-authority had not made any development at the site. The appellant further stated that he was made to believe that the possession of the plot would be handed over to him by the year 1991. Vide letter dated 28th February, 1995, the appellant was informed that if the balance amount is not paid by him by 30th November, 1995, interest would be charged on the balance amount due. The appellants contention is that in terms of the aforesaid letter the interest, if any, can be charged for the period commencing from 30th November, 1995 and not earlier to it. He had already paid a total sum of Rs. 5,74,993- but the respondents were allegedly wrongly insisting for the payment of an additional amount of Rs. 2,34,127- before delivery of possession of the plot. As the plot was not delivered to him, the appellant filed a complaint under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and 36-D of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act") before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") which was registered as Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry No. 9297.

2. Notice of enquiry under the provisions of the MRTP Act was issued to the respondent who appeared before the Commission and contended that the appellant himself through his letter dated 13th December, 1996 admitted the delay in payments and indicated his willingness to pay the entire amount outstanding against him with the request not to cancel the allotment due to delayed payments. The amount liable to be paid by the appellant was stated to have been calculated strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure circulated. The respondents could have cancelled the allotment in terms of the regulations contained in the brochure but it was not done to facilitate the appellant to make the payment of the balance amount. It was contended that the necessary facilities of sewerage, drainage, water supply and electricity connections were made available to the plot-holders including the appellant in Indrapuram Scheme. Regarding delivery of possession, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-authority, that in the brochure only estimated time of completion of scheme was indicated and delay in completion had occurred due to various factors including the constraints of funds. It was further pleaded that the paucity of financial resources had been caused due to delay or default in payment by the allottees like the appellant.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commission framed the following issues :

"1. Whether the respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE

2. Whether these unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of the complainantother members of the public

3. Whether he is entitled to reliefcompensation claimed made by him in the compensation application

4. Relief, if any "

After referring to the pleadings and the evidence produced, the Commission concluded :

"It transpires that the applicantcomplainant has of his own accord, approached the respondent and indicated his willingness to pay the amount due from him. Not only has he shown his desire to clear the dues, he has also acknowledged that there has been delay on his part in making the payment. Perusal of the allotment latter reveals that there is a stipulation with regard to payment of interest and penal interest if the payment is not made within the prescribed time limit. As both the applicantcomplainant as well as the respondent are relying on the allotment letter, it stands to reason that the outstanding amount including interest should be calculated in the light of this letter of 5.11.1989. It appears from the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the respondent that the calculations have been made on the basis of that letter and the respondent has accordingly, indicated the amount to the applicantcomplainant. In that view of the matter, the applicantcomplainants contention that interest should be charged after 30th May, 1995 is not tenable. It is also quite apparent that there has been delay in the completion of the project but delay seems to have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the respondent. It is also common knowledge that there has been cost escalation and cost estimates of 1989 need revision and the revised estimate is bound to be much higher than the original estimate. It appears that development of infrastructure and provision of utilities like water supply and electricity connection have also contributed to the hike in the estimated cost and demand for additional charges for sewerage, lease rent, etc., cannot be construed or considered to be an unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. It also transpires that the respondent is charged with the responsibility of developing land for plotsflats and making the same available to the allottees like the applicantcomplainant on actual cost value basis and the total cost incurred by it is required to be recovered from the allottees. In that view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that no case of unfair trade practices by and on behalf of the respondent has been out and no prejudice seems to have been caused to the applicantcomplainant as a consequence thereof."

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon a judgment of this Court in Bihar State Housing Board and others v. Lalit Ram, 1997(10) SCC 339 submitted that as the respondent-authority has been proved to be responsible for the delay in delivering possession of the plot, the appellant could not be burdened to pay the penal interest for the period anterior to 30th May, 1995. It is true that if the authority is found to be responsible for the delay in delivery of the possession of the plot in terms of the agreement arrived at or according to the assurance given in the brochure, the allottee cannot be burdened with the interest on the balance amount not paid by him. However, it has to be found on facts as to whether the authority or the allottees was responsible for the alleged delay. According to the available records and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant it transpires that the schedule for payment of the total estimated cost of the plot being Rs. 4,29,000- and registration amount of Rs. 42,000- was to be paid in the following instalments :

5. It further transpires that after paying the initial amount of Rs. 42,000- the appellant paid the first instalment of Rs. 63,000- on 3.1.1990 and second instalment of Rs. 76,125- on 16th August, 1990 total being Rs. 1,81,125-. Amounts of instalment due on 4.11.1990, 4.5.1991, 4.11.1991, 4.5.1992 and 4.11.1992 were, admittedly, not paid on the due dates. The respondent-authority vide its letter dated 28th February, 1995 called upon the appellant to make upto date payments and 10% of premium of his plot as lease rent and Rs. 4800- as sewer connection and water connection charges latest by 30th May, 1995. It was pointed out that

"if the payment is not made within the due date interest shall be charged Appeal dismissed."