DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs MODI LUFT LIMITED

THE Commission on receipt of a complaint from one Shri B.B.L. Madhukar, MMTC, Care 1, "Scope Complex", 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi (Informant in brief), directed the Director (Research) to investigate into matter and submit his Preliminary Investigation Report.

AFTER perusal of the PIR and Office Note submitted by Secretary of the Commission, Notice of Enquiry under Sections 36A, 36B(d) and 36D of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was directed to be issued against the respondent, which reads as under : Whereas the respondent, namely, M/s. Modi Luft Limited is engaged in the business of rendering air transport services: And whereas a complaint has been filed by Dr. B.B.L. Madhukar, Director, MMTC Ltd., New Delhi alleging that he was issued Modiluft Ticket No. 1/117010 for travel from Hyderabad to Bangalore by M-9-504 flight on 4.2.1994 with confirmed status that when he reported at Hyderabad Airport to board the flight, he was informed that the flight was not operating on 4.2.1994. The trade practice of issuing a ticket and subsequently confirmed it and later on informing the purchaser that there was no flight on the material day is prima facie a case of deficiency in air travel service and of the service not being of quality as warranted constitutes Unfair Trade Practices attracting the provisions of Section 36A of the MRTP Act, 1969. xxx xxx xxx" Inspite of several notices issued to the respondent, no reply has been filed by it. However, on 23.3.1999, it was observed by the Commission that the respondent is not interested in filing a reply and the proceedings against it were set ex parte. On the same date, liberty was given to the DG to file his evidence by way of affidavit alongwith supporting documents which was filed by him and the case was fixed for ex parte final arguments.

I have heard the ex parte arguments advanced by Shri Saud Ahmad, ADG for the DG and have gone through the documents placed on record.

THE DG have filed certain documentary evidence, correspondence and letters of the respondent addressed to the informant as Well as to the DG. By the perusal of the documents dated 5.2.1994, 21.2.1994, 19.7.1994, I have observed that it is not disputed that Ticket No. 1/ 117010 was issued in the name of Dr. B.B.L. Madhukar on 1.2.1994 for his travel from Hyderabad to Bangalore by M-9-564 on 4.2.1994 with confirmed status. However, when he reported Hyderabad Airport to board the flight, he was informed that the flight was not operating on 4.2.1994. On checking from the reservation of Modi Luft, one Ms. Monika also confirmed the booking. The matter was also brought to the knowledge of Modi Luft by their agent Balmer Lawrie and Co Ltd. vide its letter dated 5.2.1994 admitting the fault. Modi Luft in turn vide their letter dated 21.2.1994 addressed to Sr. Branch Manager (Travel) of Balmer Lawrie and Co. regretted the inconvenience caused and have assured to improve their services by changing their entire reservation system to prevent the similar situation arising in future.

ALL the allegations and facts of this case stands corroborated by the affidavit of the applicant. It has been deposed by the applicant that the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practices with particular reference to the deficiency in air travel services that the practice of issuing an air ticket and subsequently confirming it and later on informing the informant that there is no flight on the material day is a case of adoption of unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act. In the premises, in view of the conduct of the respondent in the proceedings and their failure to adduce any reply/evidence, I have no reasons not to believe the allegations and the deposition on oath. In the premises of this case, I hold that the respondent has indulged in unfair of the Act. I further hold that such unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest, interest of the consumers and the informant particularly, I pass ''Cease and Desist'' order against the respondent and direct that the respondent shall not indulge in such or similar trade practices in future as mentioned in the Notice of Enquiry. No order as to costs. NOE disposed of.