DIRECTOR GENERAL (I And R) vs ECONOMIC COMMERCIAL SERVICES

A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued on 12.8.1996 under Section 36B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), to the Economic Commercial Services, Delhi levelling allegations of indulgence in unfair trade practice on its part based on the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) submitted by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (for brief the DG). The PIR was a sequel to the complaint filed by Shri Rohit Sharma of Shahdara, Delhi.

THE facts of the case as contained in the NOE may be briefly summarized as below. THE respondent is engaged in the business of courier service. THE complainant had delivered a packet containing forms for the Combined Pre-Medical Test along with a bank draft of Rs. 200/- to the respondent on 20.7.1993 for being sent to Lucknow University, at Lucknow. THE last date of receipt of the forms by the University was 22.7.1993. THE packet had not been delivered to the addressee till the date of the filing of the complaint with the Commission in September, 1993. THE charge in the NOE was that trade practice of failing to deliver a packet amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice falling within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act. Though the NOE was served on the respondent it failed to file any reply and also it did not appear before the Commission on the dates of hearing. The proceedings against the respondent were, therefore, set ex-parte on 27.11.1997. The DG has also filed his affidavit of evidence reiterating the averments made in the PIR. Since the respondent has not filed any reply to the NOE the case pleaded by the DG in his PIR will have to be accepted in accordance with the provisions contained in Order VIII Rules 5 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The act on the part of the respondent in accepting a packet in the course of its business for delivery to the addressee and not delivering the same is to a deficiency in service attracting the provisions of Clauses (ii), (iv) and (vi) of Section 36A(1) of the Act and will amount to indulgence in unfair trade practice. I hold that the respondent has indulged in unfair trade practice and direct that it will cease from indulging in it and shall not repeat the same in future. There is no order as to costs. N.O.E. disposed of.