R K SANGHI Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has approached this Commission under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a thereof.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised. In response to advertisements issued by and on behalf of respondent No.1 some time in February, 1996, the applicant/complainant booked one Fiat Uno Car by means of his application bearing No.0101770 on 15th February, 1996. The application money in the sum of Rs.21,000/- was paid by means of a demand draft bearing No.592921 of the same date drawn on UCO Bank at Delhi. The application form alongwith the demand draft was delivered personally to respondent No.2 on 15th February, 1996 at the booking centre. Respondent No.1 accepted the booking and issued the Receipt-cum-Priority Card to the applicant/complainant for its Uno Car. The City Priority Booking Number given to the applicant/ complainant was 09/028606. By his letter of 21st April, 1997 sent to respondent No.1 by Registered Post A. D. , the applicant/complainant applied for cancellation of the booking and requested for refund of the booking amount with interest. Respondent No.1 failed to refund the booking amount despite substantial passage of time and despite several reminders issued to it by and on behalf of the applicant/complainant. Thereupon the complainant has approached this Commission with this complaint charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a of the MRTP Act. The applicant/ complainant has also prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.21,000/- by way of the booking amount, interest at the rate of 24% from 15th February, 1996 till 31st March, 1998 in the sum of Rs.10,707/- and the amount of calls in the sum of Rs.2,000/- and expenses incurred in sending various letters and reminders in the sum of Rs.1,500/-. The total compensation claimed is Rs.35,207/- with interest at the rate of 24% from 1st April, 1998 till the refund/realisation.3. Respondent No.2 has filed its reply and has resisted this compensation application on several grounds. It has inter alia contended that it has acted only as a booking agent for respondent No.1 and it has transmitted the application and the booking amount to respondent No.1.4. Respondent No.1 has appeared neither through an Advocate nor through any authorised representative of its nor through any employee or officer of it. It has filed no reply to the complaint application. In view of the relevant provisions contained in Order VIII, Rules 5 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Regulation 13 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 framed under Sec.66 of the MRTP Act, the case pleaded by the applicant/complainant in his complaint application will have to be accepted and the prayers made therein have to be granted.5. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, it is not in dispute that it has merely acted as the agent for respondent No.1 and has transmitted the entire booking amount to respondent No.1. It thus becomes clear that respondent No.2 cannot be said to be guilty of adoption of and indulgence in any kind of unfair trade practice. No order deserves to be passed against respondent No.2 on that account.6. In view of our aforesaid discussion, respondent No.1 deserves to be and is hereby directed to cease and to desist from any kind of unfair trade practices complained of in this complaint. Respondent No.1 is also directed to refund to the applicant/complainant the booking amount of Rs.21,000 /- with interest at the rate of 18% from 15th February, 1996 till payment. This order has to be complied with by and on behalf of respondent No.1 within 8 weeks from its service. Respondent No.1 is directed to effect such payment within 8 weeks from service of this order and to file an affidavit of compliance before this Commission within the same time- frame. Since respondent No.1 has not contested this proceeding, there shall be no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Respondent No.2 shall bear its own costs for this proceeding. Enquiry disposed of.