K K SAVJANI Vs. MADHUBHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Sec.13 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for recalling and revoking the orders dated 4.5.2000, 15.5.2000 and 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Chairman as he then was. The order dated 4.5.2000 was merely for fixing the date of hearing of the application for converting the UTP Enquiry No.451/1997 into a Compensation Application under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The learned Chairman passed an order on 15.5.2000 wherein he allowed the application of the complainant and permitted conversion of the Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry Proceedings into the compensation application which was registered as such as was listed for hearing on 6.5.2000 as Compensation Application No.192/2000. The learned Judge heard the matter and disposed of the same on 16.5.2000. The operative portion of the order dated 16.5.2000 reads as under : "the cause of action for filing a compensation application can be said to have accrued at the time of the supply of machinery sometime on 1st June, 1994 or in any case its satisfactory trial run on 7th September, 1994 as admitted by the parties. Even if it is assumed that later on there was no satisfactory trial production on 6th/7th October, 1994, the cause of action for filing the compensation application can be said to have accrued on that date, that is, on 7th October, 1994. As stated hereinabove, the compensation application can be said to have been instituted on 15th May, 2000 nearly five years and seven months after the date of accrual of the cause of action. In view of the aforesaid binding ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation Bank, the reasonable period for filing a compensation application under the MRTP Act would be three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. In that view of the matter, the compensation application which can be said to have been instituted on 15th May, 2000 can be said to have been instituted beyond the reasonable period of three years and it has to be held to be time-barred. The compensation application deserved to be rejected on this ground alone. Since I find the compensation application to be time-barred, I have not thought it fit to examine the merits of the case. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the compensation application is time-barred and it deserves to be rejected. In the result, the compensation application fails. It is hereby rejected however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Since the original enquiry proceeding is converted into the compensation application, the Notice of Enquiry in this case stands discharged. "

(2.) A short question which arises for consideration in the review application, which is now listed before us, is as to whether the Commission could dismiss the converted compensation application as time-barred when the original UTP Enquiry was filed in the year 1997 and an order was made on 20.10.1998 at the time of framing of issues that "the complaint is treated as a composite application for enquiry and compensation".

(3.) Not only the complaint was treated as a composite application for enquiry and compensation, an issue regarding the amount of compensation the applicant/complainant was entitled to was also framed along with the other issues which are reproduced below : (1) Whether the respondent has indulged in or has been indulging in the unfair trade practices alleged in the complaint application (2) Whether the alleged unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of complainant, to the interest of the consumers generally and to public interest (3) Whether the complainant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices (4) If so, the amount of compensation, the complainant is entitled to it may also be mentioned here that the issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and in the presence of the Advocates representing the parties. It is equally pertinent to note that the applicant/complainant in his complaint/petition claimed a compensation of Rs.33,16,100/- with interest @ 18% for the loss and damage as a consequence of the alleged adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices by the respondent and the pleadings appear to be based on the complaint/petition and the reply and rejoinder filed by the parties.