DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs BOOLANI ENGINEERING CORPORATION

ON receipt of a complaint dated 7.8.1992 from M/s. S.D. Plastic Industries, Sarigram (Gujarat), the Commission ordered the Director General {Investigation and Registration) [DG in brief] to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint and submit a report. In the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) dated 5.1.1994, DG has arrived at the conclusion that the false representations made by the respondent in respect of the impugned sale transaction amount to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in brief).

IT will be worthwhile to briefly state the facts of the case as stated in the PIR and the complaint. The respondent, namely M/s. Boolani Engineering Corporation, Mumbai is engaged in the manufacture and supply of complete range of machinery and equipment required by the plastic industry. The complainant attended an exhibition of plastic manufacturers held in Mumbai in March, 1990 and after satisfying itself about the machinery, placed an order on the respondent for the supply of extruder equipment for manufacturing the plastic bags. A sum of Rs. 55,000/- was also paid as advance. Payment of the balance amount was, however, delayed. Finally, on payment of the revised cost, the machinery ordered by the complainant was supplied in July, 1991. The complainant''s grievance is that a die of 200 mm. width which should have been supplied as per details given in the catalogue was not supplied. When the complainant approached the respondent for the supply of the aforesaid die, the respondent refused to do it free of cost but offered to make the same available on payment of cost. On the basis of the PIR filed by the DG, a Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued to the respondent. The respondent filed a reply to the NOE in which the allegation of indulgence in unfair trade practices has been denied and it has been contended that as per the contract entered into between the parties, a 50 mm., extruder with dies of specific sizes ie. 37 mm., 50 mm. and 75 mm. was to be supplied. It is further stated that the complainant had inspected the dies ordered and had accepted the same before taking delivery.

After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent has been or is indulging in unfair trade practices as indicated in the Notice of Enquiry ? (ii) If the answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative, whether the unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or to the interest of consumer or consumers generally?

AFFIDAVITS of evidence along with supporting documents were filed on behalf of both the parties. Oral evidence was also led on their behalf and finally, arguments were heard on 6.8.2001. In addition to the oral arguments, written synopses of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties have also been filed. The short question for consideration is whether the failure on the part of the respondent to supply a die of 200 mm. width to the complainant constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36-A of the MRTP Act ?

ADMITTEDLY, after the supply of the machinery, the complaints made about the malfunctioning of the machine were attended to and rectified by the respondent as and when they were brought to its notice. This shows that after sales service was duly rendered by the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the supply order dated 24.3.1990 which clearly states that the complainant had ordered a 50 mm. ''BEC'' Super Thermoplastic Extruder as per standard specifications at a price of Rs. 4,25,000/-. He also referred to the trial report dated 19.7.1991 (Exhibit-''C''), which has been duly signed by the complainant as well as the respondent. At the bottom of the report, it is stated "Trial taken up to full satisfaction". The letter dated 22.7.1991 (Exhibit -''D'') written by the complainant to the respondent confirms the satisfaction of the complainant about the trials of the ordered machine. It further shows that after this trial the respondent was requested to dispatch the ordered machinery. The complainant, however, informed the respondent on 29.2.1992 that with the existing dies, they were unable to produce 30" 32" (750 mm. 800 mm.) film. In reply to this, the respondent vide its letter dated 6.3.1992 clarified that the complainant was supplied the machine with standard dies which were confirmed by the complainant at the time of trial. It was further clarified that the extruder and the dies were inspected, ascertained and accepted by the complainant and thereafter they were supplied in accordance with the order placed by the complainant. The complainant, on the other hand, has based his plea for supply of a die of 200 mm. on the basis of details given in the catalogue. The respondent has clarified that the catalogue gives only broad details of the product manufactured and marketed by the respondent. It has been further submitted that the catalogue under reference deals with four models of extruders, namely, BEC Super 35, BEC Super 50, BEC Super 65, and BEC Super 75. The catalogue indicates the die ranges which may be applicable to these models. These specifications are, however, merely indicative. The actual supply of extruders and ancillaries depends on the requirement of the customers which is decided at the time of purchase of extruders. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the respondent Corporation had duly rendered the after-sale service to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on this count. As far as the non-supply of the die with 200 mm. width is concerned, we are of the view that since this was not part of the purchase order placed by the complainant, nor was it specified at the time of carrying out the trial of the machine, it was not obligatory on the part of the respondent to supply the same. It may be reiterated that the complainant had expressed its full satisfaction about the machines and their adjuncts at the time of trial and had placed the actual order only after the said trial.

IN this view of the matter, no case of unfair trade practices is made out against the respondent. The NOE stands discharged with no order as to costs. NOE discharged.