RAJIV KAICKER Vs. MAX WORTH ORCHARDS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Shri Rajiv Kaicker has made an and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short the Act) before the Commission. It is alleged therein that for unfair trade practices adopted and indulged in by M/s. Max Worth Orchards (India) Limited within the meaning of Sec.36b (a) read with Sections 36a and 36d of the Act, the party should be directed to cease and desist from following the said practices. For loss and damages suffered on account of such trade practices, it may be allowed compensation in the form of refund of Rs.35,000/- as deposited along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit. It has also prayed for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs for harassment and mental agony suffered by it along with cost of litigation.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts as gathered from records are that the applicant applied for 0.25 acre of land in Max Kakrala Project launched by the Company M/s. Max Worth Orchards (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent ). By the scheme launched in December, 1995, the respondent represented to the public that by making investment in Max Kakrala (Mango) Orchards Scheme one could get a return in three years. As per terms and conditions listed in the agreement, the land would be transferred in the applicant's name within 180 days from the date of payment. The orchards were to be developed in 9 months' time. Lured by the aforesaid scheme, the applicant paid Rs.35,000/- by issuing 12 cheques, which were duly acknowledged by the respondent. In November 1996, however, the applicant came across an article in Economic Times reflecting the financial crisis faced by the respondent Company. The applicant approached the respondent, who in turn through its Project Progress Report informed that registration of orchards in 17.75 acres has been completed. However, on an enquiry made, the respondent neither furnished any information nor could be contacted as the office was found to be closed. As no progress was found to be made in the project, the applicant terminated the agreement vide legal notice dated 18.1.1999 issued to the respondent invoking Clause 26 of the agreement entered into with the respondent. As the representation made turned out to be a false one, it approached the Commission for compensation, as stated above.

(3.) A notice to the Compensation Application sent to the respondent was not replied to by and on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, set ex parte vide order dated 10.2.2000. The applicant on its part filed its own affidavit along with other documentary evidence in support of the compensation claimed. The ex parte arguments were heard on behalf of the applicant.