AJAY MURDIA Vs. INDCHEM ATL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indchem ATL Limited (respondent hereafter) is a corporate body engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of electronic medical equipments like Ultrasound Diagnostic Scanners with the technical know-how from medical equipment specialists like Advanced Technology Laboratories, USA. It has a factory at Perungudi, Chennai, with service outlets in some of the major cities in India. A complaint was received from Dr. Ajay Murdia (applicant hereafter), who is running a clinic in Udaipur, Rajasthan under the name and style of Indira Infertility Clinic and Research Centre stating that on the promise of the respondent that an Ultra Sound Scanner-Ultra Mark-IV could be supplied by September, 1990, he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent as advance on 9th May, 1990. The Scanner is used for detecting the causes of infertility. It was also assured to the applicant that he would be trained in In Vitro Fetilisation (IVF for brief) in USA, to enable him to use the Scanner ordered by him for the clinic. The respondent promised to impart training for a period of six weeks. Despite receiving an amount of Rs.8.9 lakhs towards the full price of the equipment, there was considerable delay in supplying and installing the equipment which was actually carried out in Feb. , 1991 The equipment was a defective one and the respondent failed to repair the same. Nor did the respondent arrange for the training as promised.

(2.) This complaint was investigated by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG for short) who submitted to the Commission, his Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR for short ). The DG has concluded in his PIR that but for the promise of training in USA or Canada for a period of six weeks by the respondent, the applicant would not have gone for the expensive equipment in question. The applicant was, therefore, induced to purchase the equipment without training and consequently could not use the machine in a proper manner. He has added that the trade practices on the part of the respondent constitute unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a (1) of the MRTP Act, 1969.

(3.) A Notice of Enquiry (NOE for short) was, therefore, issued by the Commission on 22nd Jan. , 1993 charging the respondent of having committed unfair trade practices attracting Sec.36a of the Act. When the NOE was communicated to the respondent, it furnished a detailed reply taking certain preliminary objections and defence on merits. Its reply is summarised herein below: preliminary objections 1. The respondent has not indulged in any unfair trade practice as alleged, as it supplied and installed the equipment in question as per the contract which was concluded on 15th Dec. , 1990 and not on 9th May, 1990. The allegation of delay in supplying the equipment and of not providing training abroad cannot be construed as unfair trade practices under Sec.36a of the Act. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent.2. The MRTP Act was amended on 27th September, 1991, in order to cover any unfair-method or unfair or deceptive practice within the definition of an unfair trade practice. The transaction having been completed in Feb. , 1991, cannot be covered by the amended Sec.36a of the Act, as the amendment cannot have retrospective operation.3. The grievance of the applicant if at all may be related to the breach of the contract for which remedies are available in the Civil Courts.