PAVITRA ELECTRONICS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued on 30.1.1996 to Pavitra Electronics and Beltek India Ltd. , NOIDA under Sec.36b (d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) charging them with indulgence in unfair trade practices falling under Sec.36a of the Act. The NOE was issued on the basis of a preliminary investigation report (PIR) submitted by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (the DG) pursuant to a complaint received from Shri Kedar Singh Bhandari, Gole Market, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief may be summarised as below : shri K. S. Bhandari had purchased a TV of Beltek from Pavitra. Electronics on 13.12.1993. The TV set was manufactured by Beltek India Limited, respondent No.2. In September, 1994 the TV set went out of order and the complaint was lodged with M/s. Pavitra Electronics who failed to render after sale service. On the intervention of the DG, the set was repaired by respondent 2 and the TV set was not being delivered to the complainant unless he signed a letter of satisfaction. According to the NOE the action of the respondents amounted to unfair trade practice in terms of Sec.36a as well as 36a (1) (viii) of the Act. Beltek India Ltd. respondent 2 filed the reply to the NOE in which the following main points were made : (1) In response to a telephonic enquiry, the complainant was advised that the TV set could be got repaired either from respondent 2 or from the dealer from whom the set was purchased. On receipt of the letter from the DG and in pursuance of a policy, the respondent duly rectified the set and the complainant was contacted with the information that the set could be collected. The respondent had only asked the complainant to make a note that he had received the set in "ok condition". The complainant was satisfied and made an endorsement "ok. TV set received" on 10.6.1995. Later on the complainant insisted that the set should be replaced and cut out the endorsement refusing to take the set. (2) There has been no deficiency in service, material irregularity and misleading warranty on behalf of the respondent. (3) Because of an unfortunate death of one of the partners of respondent 1 Pavitra Electronics has not been running smooth business and the complainant seems to have been put to some inconvenience which was neither intentional nor deliberate. While regretting the inconvenience care will be taken that no such harassment is caused to any such customer. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE (2) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or to the consumers generally?

(3.) On behalf of the DG summons were issued to the informant, Shri K. S. Bhandari. Despite sufficient opportunities the witness did not attend the enquiry. In view of this the DG proposed to rely only on documentary evidence. The proceedings against respondent 1 were set ex parte as it failed to file a reply to the NOE and did not attend the hearings of the Commission. On behalf of respondent No.2 the affidavit of Mr. Srivastava the Law Officer of Beltek India was filed.