DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) vs ONIDA SAKA LIMITED

IN a complaint filed before the Commission Ms. Sujata Gupta - the complainant charged the respondents namely M/s. Onida Saka Limited, 223, Ansal Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi (R-1) and M/s. Rahul Electronics, 12-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi (R-2) with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices in terms of Section 36-A(1)(i) and (iv) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, insofar they have made false representation in regard to availability of facility of long play and short play in the Onida VCR Model No. DIGI-21 Sl. No. 4321.

THE facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one VCR alongwith a Colour TV from M/s. Rahul Electronics, 12E, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 15.1.1992. A sum of Rs. 19,950/- was paid for colour television and Rs. 20,400/- for VCR. THE payment was made through cheques. On operation of VCR, it was, however, found that the same lacked Long Play/Short Play facility as promised at the time of purchase. When approached, the Company sent an Engineer to her place, who not only rectified the defects but also explained the other facilities available on the said VCR. Not satisfied with the redressal of the grievance, she approached the Commission for payment of compensation of Rs. 1.00 lack by the respondent for having made false representation. On receipt of the complaint, Notice of Enquiry was sent to the respondents in pursuance of recommendation regarding institution of enquiries at the end of Director General - Investigation and Registration (DG.I.R. in short). In response to the Notice of Enquiry issued to the respondents, the respondent No. 1 stated that as evident from the instruction manual given alongwith the VCR sold by its Dealer, namely, respondent No. 2 the said product, i.e., Model No. DIGI-21 of V.C.R. contains no facilities in regard to Long Play/Short Play. The manufacturer has never advertised or represented the availability of such facilities in any of its advertisement material for the said model. The complainant purchased the product after being fully satisfied with the work of the VCR which was demonstrated at the time of purchase. The words LP/SP appearing on the display did not glow which clearly showed the non-existence of the stated facility in the particular Model, viz., DIGI-21. The complainant fully knew that such facility does not exist in the said model as purchased.

The respondent No. 2 neither appeared nor filed any reply in its defence during the course of proceedings, it was, therefore, set ex parte. It has, however, been explained on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the dealership of M/s. Rahul Electronics has since been cancelled after the last transaction which took place on 31.3.1994.

AFTER the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been or are indulging in unfair trade practices as indicated in the Notice of Enquiry ? (2) 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 the consumer or consumers generally ?

Mr. C.B.N. Babu, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of DG, the respondent No. 1 was represented by Mr. A.P. Singh, the learned Advocate. While the DG supported its case on the basis of the documents, the respondent No. 1 relied on both documentary as well oral evidence. Shri Ajay Kumar, Officer of the Company deposed in its favour.

WE have considered the rival submissions made and have also gone through the material placed on record. Except the complaint as filed, no other evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the charge levelled by the complainant against the respondents. On the other hand, the documents in the form of instruction manual (Exhibit Annexure R-1) shows that nowhere it has been represented that the model in question contains the long and short play facility. As per the said document (Annexure R-1) the following facilities have been listed therein. (i) Automatic Head cleaning-for the perfect play back (ii) Digital tracking-for increased video viewing ease (iii) Superb VHS picture quality (iv) Unicommander remote control-an advantage to existing onida owners. (v) Slow motion/frame advance (vi) Quick response loading mechanism (vii) 24 hours instant timer (viii) Child lock/display off function (ix) Intelligent blank search system (x) Automatic repeat play back-possible upto 5 times (xi) Automatic index search/intro search (xii) Real time go-to/Real time search (xiii) Dual system adaptability (xiv) 60 minute memory back up (xv) 36 control remote unit (xvi) Skip search

The facility in question is conspicuous by its absence. While the respondent has categorically denied having ever represented the availability of the facility in the model, the DG has failed to substantiate its claim against the respondent No. 1. In view of above, no case of unfair trade practice can be said to have been established against respondent No. 2 also. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion, no case of false representation has been made out against the respondents. Accordingly, the complaint as filed deserves to be and is directed to be dismissed. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that a statement has been made at Bar by the Counsel for the respondent that the compensation application filed by the applicant has already been dismissed by the Commission. In the premises, the complaint as filed stands dismissed. No order as to cost on the facts and circumstances of the case. Complaint dismissed.