VINOD KUMARS Vs. NUCHEM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is an Interior Decorator. The respondent is a public limited Company manufacturing NUWUD MDF Boards. The respondent advertised for its products in various newspapers including Times of India, Navbharat Times and India Today. Impressed by the advertisements, the applicant purchased NUWUD MDF from various authorised dealers for its use in different organizations, namely M/s. Som Datt Builders Ltd., M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd., M/s. Capital Sales Corporation, and M/s. E.C.P. Ltd. The boards were fitted with laminated sheets, hardware material and were painted and polished with melamine lacquer. Soon thereafter the parties for whom the work was done complained about the sub-standard quality of boards. It was mentioned therein that the boards started warping and contracting at the joints contrary to the representation made in the advertisement. It was insisted upon that the material be changed. Applicant accordingly purchased fresh boards from M/s. Gurinder Sales Agency for replacing the material used for re-doing the job in M/s. Nahar Spinning Mills Limited, M/s. Capital Sales Corporation and M/s. E.C.P. Limited. Even the NUWUD MDF boards used in the office had to be replaced. The defects were pointed out to the authorised dealers of the respondent who had also made recommended the use of the product in question. The dealers agreed that the boards supplied were of sub-standard quality. They, however, advised that the matter be taken up with the respondent with whom alone the claim could be made. The applicant got in touch with the Marketing General Manager of the respondent Company Mr. N.S. Loomba as well as with Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva, the Sales Executive of the respondent who also advised the applicant to lodge the claim which could be suitably considered by the Board of Directors. Thereafter various complaints dated 24.7.1992, 27.7.1992 and 17.8.1992 made with the respondent did not yield any result. It was only on 4th Aug., 1992, that the applicant was informed that expansion/contraction was possible during the monsoon season and that the defects appeared as the guidelines issued to the authorised dealers were not followed. As the guidelines were not made available to the applicant, it is contended to have suffered losses as a result of misrepresentation on the part of the respondent. As per statement of facts in the application, the applicant has prayed for an enquiry to be held against the respondent as well for an award of compensation of Rs. 20.00 lakhs for the loss suffered. The application filed is under Sec. 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) A notice was issued to the respondent who vehemently defended the allegations levelled against it. It is the contention of the respondent that the application so filed did not disclose any material facts to constitute restrictive trade practices or unfair trade practices alleged to have been adopted by the respondent. In addition to the defence on merits, technical objections viz. non-verification of the application, non-disclosure on the material particulars, absence of any cause of action etc. etc., it is stated that any warping, contracting at the joints, bending of the table tops, cracking etc., if at all occurred, was on account of failure of the applicant to follow proper guidelines issued though the dealers, conferences and representations. As per guidelines, proper framework material as well as the screws are to be used while fixing the NUWUD MDF boards for the work of paneling, partition etc. The product of the respondent Company is contended to conform to the Indian and International Standards as mentioned below :

(3.) It is also the contention of the respondent that some of the bills furnished along with the complaint are not that of the NUWUD MDF Indian Board but of other material. The applicant is an Interior Decorator not having proper knowledge of the work undertaken by it. As the respondent has not received any complaints from any other quarter to justify the charges of the applicant, the onus is on the applicant to prove that the quality of the product is not in conformity with the representation made in the advertisement. Therefore, the application being frivolous is to be dismissed, contended the respondent. After completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :