EQUINOX Vs. PAL PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In two separate applications made before the Commission, the applicant M/s. Equinox through its partners Ms. Madhu Chandan has stated that M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd.- a Company engaged in the business of manufacture of motor cars through its dealer M/s. Vivek Automobiles Ltd. has indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short the Act ). By inviting applications from the public at large for booking two cars known as Peugeot 309 and receiving deposit, neither the cars have been made available nor the deposit refunded, as promised. For loss and damage suffered, the applicant is thus entitled to refund of deposits and in addition for mental agony and harassment as well for the cost of legal proceedings as incurred by the applicant.

(2.) In pursuant to the advertisement in the year 1995, the applicant applied for two cars known as Peugeot 309. It also paid Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.095696 dated 24.11.1997. Receipt- cum-priority cards (Control No.98569, Dealer/ Priority registration No. D-210/7133 Receipt- cum-Priority Card No.69981 and Control No.98570, Dealer/priority Registration No. D-210/ 1930 Receipt-cum-Priority Card No.69982) were issued by M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. As the cars were not delivered as per the schedule of delivery, the applicant applied for the refund of his booking amount along with the interest by surrendering receipt-cum-priority cards. Despite several reminders given through registered letters, as nothing was heard from the party, the applications, as stated above, were made before the Commission.3. A notice to the compensation application was sent to both the respondents. As no reply was furnished on behalf of respondent No.1, it was set ex parte.4. Respondent No.2 in its reply, however, maintained that as the cheque received from the applicant was sent to M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd.- respondent No.1 on whose behalf the same was received, no case has been made out against it. It has also been stated that as no relief has been sought against respondent No.2, the proceeding against it may be dropped. On completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been indulging in unfair trading practices as alleged in the Compensation Application? (2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices (3) Relief, if any 5. The applicant on its part filed affidavits of evidence along with the documents in support of the oral submissions made.6. On careful consideration of the contents of the applications along with the docu- ments filed in support, I find that a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards registration amount has been paid. The applicant also surrendered priority- cum-registration cards when the delivery of the vehicles was found to be not possible in view of respondent No.1 having not started the production of cars. As promised, the amount was not refunded on the request as made by the applicant. The respondent No.1 had also not cared to defend its case and denied the charges as levelled against it. Thus by its acts of omission and commission, the charges levelled against respondent No.1 are deemed to have been established. Accordingly the applicant is entitled to the refund of Rs.50,000/- towards booking charges along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till the date of payment. The amount claimed for harassment and mental agony is not allowable in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s. Union of India, 2000 2 CPJ 1. As regards respondent No.2, who stated to be no more the authorised dealer of respondent No.1, in view of no charge having been established against it and no relief being claimed, the notice, as issued, stands discharged. Respondent No.1 is, however, directed to pay Rs.50,000/-, as stated above, within 8 weeks from the receipt of the order along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment till the date of refund. The respondent No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses as claimed. The affidavit of compliance of the order should be made within two weeks thereafter. Compensation Applications disposed of.