T RAGHAVAN Vs. PAL-PEUGEOT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application has been filed by Shri T. Raghavan, Chennai under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) seeking compensation from the respondent on the ground that it indulged in unfair trade practices. The facts of the case as contained in the compensation application may be briefly summarized as below.

(2.) The applicant had booked a Pal Peugeot 309 car with the respondent in February, 1996 and deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as registration amount. The booking was registered by the respondent and the applicant was allotted a priority number. The applicant thereafter requested for cancellation of the booking of the car through its letter dated 10.2.1996. The respondent in its letter dated 19.1.1997 indicated the cancellation number and stated that the process of cancellation was being done. The applicant has not received the amount despite repeated approaches to the respondent.

(3.) Since the respondent did not file a reply to the notice of the compensation application despite due service the respondent was set ex parte on 10.12.1998. Thereafter the applicant filed an affidavit of evidence reiterating the averments made in the compensation application. Since the respondent was absent on the date of final hearing on 23.4.1999 despite intimation to it, I gave a hearing to the applicant.