DEEPAK SINHA vs PAL-PEUGEOT LIMITED

IN a complaint filed in C.A. No. 291 /98 the applicant Shri Deepak Sinha stated that he had booked Peugeot-309 car vide an Application No. 0081540 and deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 31.10.1995. Vide letter dated 22.4.1997 he was allotted priority No. 1953. On 23.4.1997 the applicant cancelled his booking of car and requested the respondent for refund of booking amount. The respondent duly acknowledged the receipt of letter and vide letter dated 11.5.1997 he was informed about the cancellation No. which as 83317. He was further informed that his case for issue of refund was being processed. Subsequently, vide his letter dated 16.6.1997 the applicant reminded the respondent for refund of the money as requested earlier. As nothing was heard for quite some time a legal notice was sent to the respondent through registered post for refund of registration amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. This also met the same fate despite having been served on the respondent in view of the false representation made by the respondent, the latter as stated to have indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act). Accordingly the claim for refund of an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest of 24% from the date of deposit of the amount alongwith compensation for loss and damages suffered as well the cost of the petition has been filed.

NOTICE was sent to the respondent alongwith compensation application. Since no reply was filed to the aforesaid notice, the respondent was set ex parte vide order dated 12.5.1999. The applicant relying on the documents alone as placed on record stated that as the allegations levelled against the respondent stands established it is entitled to compensation as mentioned in its application.

We have heard the arguments as advanced by the Advocate for the applicant and have also gone through the documents placed on record. Admittedly the applicant/complainant has paid Rs. 25,000/- as advance amount for booking of Pal Peugeot-309 car. It has also cancelled the booking as per terms and conditions of the booking and has surrendered the receipt-cum-priority card in original as required. The respondent has not defended its case and has not denied the charges as levelled against it. By not doing so the case of the applicant/complainant of unfair trade practices against the respondent stand established. Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to refund of Rs. 25,000/- as paid by it. In view of other similar cases decided by the Commission on the same cause of action against the same respondent it is also entitled to 18% interest on the amount deposited from the date of receipt of the amount till date of payment. For having suffered on account of monetary loss and as well the cost of litigation, it is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards damages.

THE respondent shall give effect to this order within six weeks from date of the receipt of the order and file an affidavit of compliance within four weeks thereafter. THEre is no order as to costs. C.A. allowed.