RAMESH KANSAL Vs. PAL PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/ complainant has filed a composite application under Sec.36b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 alleging indulgence in unfair trade practices by the respondent and claiming compensation for the loss suffered. Briefly, the facts of the case are listed in the following paragraphs.

(2.) The complainant applied to the respondent for allotment of a Peugeot 309 Car vide Application No.0105841 on 28.10.1995. He deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as booking amount through a Demand Draft No.209592 dated 28.10.1995 drawn on the Punjab National Bank. The respondent acknowledged the application for allotment and issued a Receipt cum Priority Card bearing No.77158. Subsequently, the applicant cancelled the booking vide his letter dated 8.8.1997 and requested the respondent to refund the booking amount. The request for refund of the booking amount was followed up by a reminder dated 11.11.1997 but to no avail.

(3.) A Notice of Enquiry under Sections 36a, 36b (a) and 36d of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 read with Regulation 51 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Regulations, 1991 was issued on 29.5.1998. The respondent, however, did not file any reply to the NOE nor entered appearance either through an Advocate or through an authorised representative. In the circumstances, the respondent was set ex parte on 11.1.1999. The applicant was directed to file his affidavit in evidence. The applicant filed his affidavit of evidence on 28.4.1999 in which he reiterated the points raised by him in the main petition. Though the respondent did not enter appearance on any of the dates fixed by the Commission despite notices sent to it, in the interest of justice, the respondent was given an opportunity to participate in the final arguments. However, on the date of final hearing also, none appeared on behalf of the respondent and therefore the arguments were heard ex parte.