Case: G.D.A. and Ors Vs. Mithilesh Goel

The estimated cost at that point of time was to be Rs. 5,40,000/- and the complainant deposited Rs. 1,35,000/- on 08.09.19932. On 10.09.1993, the Authority issued an allotment letter-cum-payment schedule allotting House No. J-75 to the complainant and the estimated cost thereof which, as has been stated hereinbefore, was intimated as Rs. 5,40,000/-. By 16.07.1997, Smt. Goel paid a sum of Rs. 5,72,800/- which was beyond the estimated cost of Rs. 5,40,000/-. However, after seven years, on 02.11.2000, the Authority intimated the final cost of the house as Rs. 6,42,464/- and demanded the balance amount. When the complainant protested, the Authority kept on upping its demand until finally the complainant was constrained to move the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short the Commission) on the ground that the upping of this demand in an arbitrary fashion would amount to an unfair trade practice.

Court's reasoning:
4. It will be noticed that "unfair trade practice" will fall under this Section only when "goods" or "the provision of any services" are involved. In particular, the unfair trade practice alleged and found in favour of the complainant is under Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) under which a person falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade5. We find that the alleged arbitrary up-ping of the amount to be paid towards the house, which is an immovable property, cannot possibly be said to be a false representation by the Ghaziabad Development Authority that services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. This is for two reasons. First and the foremost, there is no false representation by the Authority, inasmuch as what was communicated to the complainant was only an estimated cost of the house in question. That estimate was revised later owing to several factors. This itself would show that there is no false representation within Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, what was given was allotment of a house which is an immovable property, and not services of any kind. This being the case, we are of the view that the impugned order must be set aside as it is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.