Ramesh Kumar Vs Chandigarh Housing Board (Competition Commission of India)
Introduction The Competition Commission of India recently examined a notable case between Ramesh Kumar and the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB). The primary point of contention revolves around whether CHB abused its dominant position, especially concerning the non-disclosure of house possession dates.
Non-disclosure of House Possession Date
- Relevance of Section 4: The Commission delved deep into Section 4 of the Act to determine if CHB’s actions constituted an abuse of their dominant position.
- Observations from Housing Scheme 2010: The Brochure and ACDL of the scheme were carefully scrutinized. It was found that CHB failed to mention the tentative date for handing over possession, a key concern for many potential homeowners.
- CHB’s Defense: CHB, in their response, stated that their brochure did not have any provision to mention completion dates. However, they did admit to certain schemes lacking tentative completion dates.
Levy of Penal Interest for Delayed Payments
- DG’s Observation: A major point of contention arose when CHB imposed an interest for a full month due to a delay of just one day in the payment of an instalment. This action was deemed as unfair and in violation of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
- CHB’s Response: CHB cited its regulations, which gave it the power to charge interest. However, the method they used for calculating this interest was under scrutiny.
Commission’s View and Decision
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
