EXPO MACHINERY LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the complaints dated 9.1.90 and 15.12.90 of one Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, 1339 Krishna Gali, Bazar Guliyan, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as informant), the M. R. T. P. Commission has ordered the preliminary investigation under Regulation 35 (1) of M. R. T. P. C. Regulations, 1974 (herein after referred to as Regulations) to be conducted by Director (Research ). In the complaints the informant has alleged that M/s. Expo Machinery Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent) has sold a defective refrigerator and has not rendered satisfactory after-sale service. The Director (R) simply prepared its report dated 10th May, 1991 on the basis of the comments/ reply furnished by the respondent and made the recommendation for institution of enquiry against the respondent under Sec.36a (viii) (ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as Act ).

(2.) Finding a prima facie case the Commission directed the issuance of Notice of Enquiry and therefore Notice of Enquiry dated 5th July, 1991 was issued to the respondent under Sec.36a (1) (i) (viii) of the Act which, inter alia, reads as under: "the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kelvinator of India Limited engaged in the sale and service of Kelvinator Refrigerators. It had sold a Kelvinator refrigerator to one Vijay Kumar Jain of Krishna Gali, Bazar Guliyan, Delhi in November, 1988. The fridge was defective as it did not work properly even during the warranty period. The consumer brought the defects to the respondent's notice several times and its service engineer repaired the fridge three times during the warranty period. In spite of those repairs the defects remained the same. Therefore, the fridge was replaced during April, 1990. The fridge which was replaced by the respondent had also some manufacturing defects. Its inside body was quite shabby. It seems some 2nd hand fridge had been delivered to the consumer. The consumer lodged a complaint with the respondent in July '90 for repairing of the fridge. The service engineer of the respondent kept the fridge under observation but could not rectify the defects. Finally, the fridge was taken to respondent's workshop on 14th February '91 but returned to the consumer in the same condition on 8th March, 1991. The fridge is still out of order as reported by the consumer in a letter dated 27th March '91. A copy of the PIR dated 10th May, 1991 is enclosed for ready reference. "

(3.) The respondent in response to a reply to the Notice of Enquiry submitted that the present complaint in question is an abuse of process of law and ought not to be entertained by the Com mission as the informant by exerting his access to press has misused his privilege and has tried to malign of a reputed manufacturer who sell thousands of refrigerators within the courtry every year; that the Notice of Enquiry deserves to be discharged since the nature of the complaint is very vague and generally showing no specific problem and it was merely at the whims and fancy of the informant and his family members, who wanted the refrigerator to be replaced even though the refrigerator was in prefect working condition; that complainant had originally purchased one 286 litre refrigerator in November, 1988 and was duly entitled to service under the service contract entered into with the Company and the present complaint cannot be with respect to both the refrigerators because it was the first refrigerator which was sold to the complainant and the second refrigerator was only given by way of replacement to the first one and was not sold as such; that each and every refrigerator manufactured by M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. is "test checked" before it is rolled out of the factory for sale and it is absolutely incorrect that the refrigerator was defective in any manner; that the informant being an employee of Times of India group of newspapers or the Company publishing those newspapers has misused his position in indulging in this malicious propaganda against the respondent and exerted pressure on the respondent in agreeing to give a new refrigerator even though the same was in working condition; that as far as the second refrigerator is concerned, which was given by way of replacement to the first one has been working satisfactorily and has been attended as and when informant asked for.