BHANU IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LTD. vs SURAJ KANTA ELECTRONICS

AN application under Section 12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Bhanu Iron and Steel Company Ltd. stating that it was approached in August-September, 1994 by the respondents who represented that they were in a position to supply, instal and commission high quality Satellite Reception System, it has been further stated that on the basis of he representations made by the respondent and the discussions that took place, the applicant placed an order on the respondents on 10th October, 1994 for installation of a Central ANtenna System in its corporate office C-631, New Friend, Colony, New Delhi. It has been further mentioned that Central ANtenna System was chosen because it was recommended by the respondents and according to the terms, which were mutually agreed 50% of the amount was to be paid in advance and accordingly a cheque of Rs. 93,000/- bearing No. 228498 dated the 10th October, 1994 drawn on the State Bank of India, Friends Colony was issued in favour of the respondents and the bacance 50% was to be paid on installation and commissioning of the above System. It has been further added that the respondents sought a further advance of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- in cash and these amounts were also paid on 10th December and 20th December, 1994 respectively. The grievance of the applicant is that although the payments were made to the respondents as per the mutually agreed terms, the respondents failed to instal the system and to reund the amount. It has been further stated that thereupon the applicant by a letter dated 7th March, 1995 cancelled the order dated the 10th October, 1994 and sought refund of the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- paid to the respondents.

THE respondents, on the other hand, are stated to have written a letter dated the 15th September, 1995 to the applicant informing that they were ready to complete job and by another letter of 19th September, 1995 asked for payment of the balance amount. THE grievance of the applicant is that as per the terms the balance amount was to be paid only after the installation of the central antenna system and as the respondents did not stick to these terms, a notice dated 24th November, 1995 was sent to them. It has been complained by the applicant that even after 1 years the respondents have failed to instal and commission the central antenna system and also to refund the amount. It transpires that a notice in respect of the present compensation application could not be issued to the respondents as their complete addressee were not furnished by the applicant. When it was stated by the Advocate for the applicant that the complete postal addressees of the respondents were not available, the applicant was directed to get the notice published in a newspaper indicating therein the next date of hearing which was 24th November, 1998. However the notice was duly published in the "National Herald" in its issue of 6.8.1998 and it was clearly indicated therein that the case was listed before the Commission on 24th November, 1998. As the respondents failed to enter appearance either through an Advocate or an authorised representative and also did not file a reply, proceedings were started ex parte against them. The applicant has furnished its affidavit of evidence alongwith supporting documents.

Despite opportunities, the respondents neither entered appearance nor filed a reply. After the applicant tendered its affidavit of evidence, ex parte arguments were also heard. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the applicant and perused the relevant record. As the respondents have chosen not to appear or file a reply, the present compensation application has remained uncontested and the applicant can, therefore, be said to have made out a case of unfair trade practices by and on behalf of the respondents. The respondents are, therefore, directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- paid by the applicant for the installation of the Central Antenna System with interest @ 18%. Interest @ 18% is considered reasonable and has been awarded in several cases by the Commission. In addition, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is also awarded to the applicant as costs of litigation. The respondents are directed to make the payment of the aforesaid amounts and also file an affidavit of compliance within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. C.A. disposed of.