A K KOCHAR Vs. PERTECH COMPUTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) has been filed by the applicant, Shri A. K. Kochar, charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices, and alleging therein, that in response to an advertisement in the Hindustan Times of 23.11.1996, he approached the respondent, Pertech Computers Ltd. for purchasing a computer 486 system and paid an amount of Rs.18,499/- as 100% advance through his credit card. The amount, so paid in advance, represented the price of the computer system as advertised in the newspaper on 23.11.1996 and in lieu thereof, a receipt dated 23.11.1996 was issued to him by the respondent. It has been further complained by him that although he was promised by the respondent that the computer in question, would be delivered to him within four to six weeks from the date of payment, the respondent has not given the delivery of the computer, so far, in spite of the correspondence with the respondent as well as the respondent's agent, Prollab Computers Ltd. , through whom the booking was made. It has been further stated by him that the respondent, through its letter dated 8.8.1997, had intimated to him that due to circumstances beyond control of the respondent, the computer could not be delivered but the situation was likely to improve and the computer would be made available in about two months or the amount paid by him, would be refunded, in case the order was cancelled. The grievance of the applicant is that the computer has not been delivered till date and he has been compelled to file the present compensation application.

(2.) A notice in respect of the aforesaid compensation application was issued to the respondents and the respondents were represented on the first date of hearing i. e.6.4.1998. Thereafter, the respondents neither entered appearance nor filed the reply to the applicant's compensation application. The respondents were accordingly, set ex-parte vide this Commission's order dated 16.2.1999. Thus the applicant's compensation has remained uncontested and the applicant can be said to have made out a case of unfair trade practices by and on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) In support of the compensation application, the applicant has annexed a copy of the newspaper advertisement, which appeared in the Hindustan Times on 23.11.1996 and also the receipt for Rs.18,499/- paid as 100% advance, issued by the respondent. The applicant has also produced copies of his correspondence with the respondent to substantiate his case that the computer, in question, has not been delivered to him so far and the refund of the amount has also not been made by the respondent.