S DURGA PRASAD RAO Vs. BATA SHOES STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri S. Durga Prasad Rao, New Delhi filed a complaint under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) alleging indulgence in unfair and restrictive trade practices by Bata India Limited, respondent No.2 and its dealer respondent No.1. A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued on 13.8.1995. The complainant also filed a Compensation Application No.196/96. This common order is being passed in both these cases, as the cause of action in both is the same.

(2.) The facts of the case as contained in the complaint and the compensation application can be briefly summarised as below. The complainant/applicant purchased a pair of shoes manufactured by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 for Rs.949.50 on 28.3.1995. In purchasing the same he was led to believe in the representation of the respondents in their advertisements as well as their reputation they have built that the shoes were of a standard quality. After having owned the shoes for hardly a period of 2 weeks the complainant/applicant realised that there was a manufacturing defect in the soles of both the shoes. The complainant/ applicant wrote a letter to respondent No.1 on 6.5.1995 for replacement of the shoes or for refund of the money which the respondents declined. Since alongwith the complaint the complainant had to deposit the shoes he was also forced to buy another pair of cheaper shoes for his immediate requirement. In the compensation application the applicant has asked for the cost of the shoes and reimbursement of the expenses alongwith compensation for mental agony.

(3.) Since despite proper service the respondent did not respond to the NOE, they were originally set ex parte. The ex parte orders were recalled nearly an year after issue of NOE. In the reply to the NOE respondent No.2 has made the following main points : (1) The respondent manufactures the goods with utmost care and under stringent quality control and it enjoys reputation world over in respect of its products. (2) The complainant approached the respondent No.1 after lapse of a period of 42 days after the purchase. (3) The representative of the respondent without going into the merits of the complaint offered 50% refund and thereafter as a special case sanctioned 100% refund which the complainant deliberately did not receive in order to file the complaint for his enrichment.