Consumer Case Studies
|
| Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi |
| |
| C M Nayar, Chairman & Ms Moksh Mahajan, Member |
| |
| Polyfoams Pvt Ltd - Applicant |
| Versus |
| Premier Automobiles Ltd & Anr. – Respondent |
| |
| C.A. No. 10 of 2001 |
(Decided on 15-10-2003) |
|
|
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 12-B, 36-A - Unfair Trade Practices - Car Cancellation of Booking - Refund of Deposit - Applicant paid Rs. 20,000/- at the time of booking the car - Cancellation of Booking as delivery not effected in time - Claim for refund of deposit - Despite legal notice the respondent neither made payments nor cared to defend themselves against allegations of unfair practice - Applicants entitled for refund of Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 12%.
Facts of the case: |
1. |
Applicant booked a premier 1.38D car with Respondent by paying Rs.20,000/-. Applicant cancelled the booking as car was not delivered in time and registered for refund of deposit - Despite legal notice respondent not chose to answer - Application filed alleging unfair trade practice - The respondent set ex parte - Silence on the part of respondents is deemed to have confirmed the act of unfair trade practice.
|
|
|
2. |
The Commission directed for refund of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @12% p.a.
|
|
|
|
Result: Appeal Allowed. |
|
IMPORTANT POINT |
|
Silence of respondent is deemed as confirmation of act of unfair trade practice. |
|
ORDER |
|
Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Member - The applicant, a Private Limited Company, booked a Premier 1.38D car on 22nd January, 1994 (through its Managing Director) with Premier Automobiles Limited, LBS Marg, Kurla, Bombay (R-l). The applicant paid Rs. 20,000/-, which was duly acknowledged by the respondent. The applicant was issued priority registration No. D059/00259 and Control No. 24600. As the car was not delivered in time, the applicant cancelled its booking vide letter dated 11th February, 1997 and requested for refund of the amount paid. The same was acknowledged by R-l, Mis Premier Automobiles Limited vide its letter dated 4th December, 1999, confirming the cancellation of the car and promising to refund the amount with interest in due course of time. When, even the legal notice sent through its Advocate was not responded to, the applicant, filed an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act alleging that the respondent has adopted and indulged in unfair trade practices causing loss to the applicant for which the applicant needs to be suitably compensated. |
2. |
In response to the notice issued under Section 12B of the Act, none of the respondents either filed a reply or attended the proceedings on the dates fixed from time to time. Accordingly, the respondents were set ex parte vide Commission’s order dated 10th October 2002. The applicant on its part filed affidavit of evidence along with supporting documents confirming the facts as brought out in the application.
|
|
|
3. |
We have considered the arguments of the applicant and have also gone through the supporting documents (Photostat filed, original stated to have been filed in another case UPTE No. 166/2000). Admittedly, on the representation made on behalf of R-1, the applicant not only made a booking order, but also paid Rs. 20,000/- as demanded towards booking charges. This was as early as in the year 1994. The delivery of the car was delayed beyond the reasonable period of time. The applicant cancelled its booking vide letter dated 11th February, 1997. The cancellation of the booking was not only admitted by the respondent but, the refund of the said amount with interest was also promised.
Despite legal notice issued, neither the payment has been made till date nor the interest of the said amount has been issued. The respondent has not even cared to defend itself against the allegations of unfair trade practices levelled against it by the applicant. The silence on the part of the respondents is deemed to have confirmed the act of unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent, which brings its case squarely within the ambit of the provisions of Section 36A of the Act. In absence of any explanation whatsoever either for delivery of the car or for refund of the amount, in my considered opinion, the applicant need to be compensated for the loss suffered by it. I may also state that in a number of cases filed against the respondent for a similar action on its part, the Commission has awarded interest at 12% on the refund to be issued from the date of the deposit till the date of the payment. In view of the facts being the same, R-1 is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
|
|
|
4. |
Respondent is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within four weeks from the receipt of the order and file an affidavit of compliance within two weeks thereafter.
|
|
|
|
