FENA LIMITED vs PAL-PEUGEOT LIMITED

IN a complaint filed in C.A. No. 374/98, the applicant/complainant Fena Limited has stated that it had booked Peugoet-309 car vide an Application No. 0183172 which was sent to Pal-Peugeot Limited, Kalyan Shill Road, Manpada, Dombivli, Thane. The booking was made through their authorised dealer Auto Kashyap INdia Pvt. Limited, New Delhi. An advance of booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- was given by way of demand draft No. 926182 dated 31st October, 1995 alongwith the application form. This was duly received and acknowledged by the respondent vide receipt-cum-priority card No. 69888 of February, 1996. The applicant/complainant was allotted booking of a Peugeot-309 car vide booking No. 108387/D-305/412. Subsequently, the applicant cancelled the booking of the car vide its letter 14th October, 1996 and also surrendered the receipt-cum-priority card in original as required by the respondent for refund of the advance amount. The documents were received by the respondent but the refund was not given till date. This was despite several letters written to the respondent dated 28th December, 1996, 4th February, 1997, 23rd May, 1997 etc. Legal notice dated 1st July, 1997 was also served to the respondent asking for the refund of the amount deposited. As per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of booking, the respondent was bound to refund the booking advance within sixty days from the date of receipt of the cancellation latter. Since this was not done the respondent indulged in unfair/restrictive trade practice as defined under Section 36A and Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act). Accordingly it claimed 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.

NOTICE was sent to the respondent alongwith compensation application. Since no reply was filed to the aforesaid notice, the respondent was set ex parte. The applicant/complainant 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.

I have heard the arguments as advanced on behalf of the applicant/complainant 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 have 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. Application disposed of.