N.C. Gupta, Member
(1.) THIS order will dispose of the aforesaid three compensation applications where the respondents are the same and the claims of the different applicants emanate from the set of circumstances which are common to all these matters. By consent of the parties, the evidence recorded in C. A. No. 1571 of 1988 is being read for deciding all these matters.
(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. Respondent No. 1 is a limited company and Shri V. K. Mago is its managing director. The same Shri Mago is the sole proprietor of the business concern-respondent No, 2. The common cause of grievance in all the three applications is that the two respondents issued advertisements for marketing of "property shares" in apartments/ cottages at various places and in particular in the Mussoorie hills representing that the said shares would appreciate by almost 10% every year and may fetch an income to a maximum of 22% and also that the same were freely and easily transferable/saleable through a net work provided by the respondents. The applicant in C.A. No. 1571 of 1988 invested a total sum of Rs. 14,500 acting on the representation that he was entitled to a one-week stay every year in the apartment put up by the respondents at Mussoorie. It is alleged in the application that the applicant invested the amount on the basis of allurement given in the advertisement that he will obtain a return of 22% per annum but all those claims proved to be false ; that such misleading advertisements amount to an unfair trade practice and, therefore, he made, a claim for compensation as per particulars placed below :
Similarly the applicants in C. A. No. 1357 of 1988, acting on the representation, as aforesaid, applied for the "property shares", two in the name of the applicant and four in the name of his daughter who is applicant No. 2 and they made a total payment of Rs. 79,000 to the respondent. These applicants have filed claims for Rs. 1,41,000 on the basis of allegations that the representations made in the advertisements were incorrect and they have suffered loss by reason of the unfair trade practice indulged in by the respondents.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the above two applications, C. A. No. 64 of 1990 was also filed on the basis of the same allegations raising a claim for compensation stating that he had invested a sum of Rs, 21,500 for the purchase of "property shares" marketed by the respondents.;