RAJ KUMARI Vs. NOVELTY RADIOS AND WATCH EXPERTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the above Compensation Application under Sec.12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The applicant had filed the compensation application on 5th July, 1996 stating as under; "that I purchased one refrigerator chassis No.11213407505/90200174 namely Kelvina- tor from M/s. Novelty Radios and Watch Experts, 77, Sarojini Nagar Market-, New Delhi-23 on hard cash vide their memo number 321 dated 31.12.1993 (a copy of cash meinois enclosed ). After the payment of Rs.11,500/- (Eleven thousand and five hundred only) the above said dealer has supplied me the refrigerator on 18.1.1994 vide bill number 1564 for Rs.11,700/-. I had complained the above noted dealer several times but not found any satisfactory response from him.1 think the refrigerator sold to me is not of a good quality. Vide my complaint number 5651 dated 15.7.1994. The refrigerator was also kept for one month in their workshop but the problem is still not working properly. In this way, I have suffered a great mental agony. In this connection it is humbly requested that you may kindly ask the dealer to change the refrigerator with hew one or to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,700/- with 18% annual interest. "

(2.) The notice was issued to all the parties on 30.9.1996 returnable on 15.10.1996. This notice was received by R-1 vide the acknowledgement placed on record. However, R-3 appeared before the Commission and took time to file the reply. Thereafter again the notice was issued to R-1 and R- 2 on several dates but nobody appeared on behalf of R-1 and R-2. The Notice "dasti" were also served by the applicant to R-l and R-2 on 15.11.1996 and the memorandum of service alongwith affidavit was submitted to the Commission which is placed on record. Thus inspite of several opportunities given, the Commission treated the proceeding against R-1 and R-2 as ex parte. The reply of R-3 was placed on record. The issues were framed on 5.12.1997 as under: 1. Whether the compensation application is not maintainable for the preliminary objections taken by R-3 2. Whether the respondents have indulged in or are indulging in the unfair trade practices alleged in the CA?

(3.) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices