HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS LTD. vs PRERNA SEN

THIS is a compensation application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 preferred by Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. (applicant hereafter) alleging that Ms. Prerna Sen (respondent hereafter) has indulged in certain unfair and restrictive trade practices causing loss and damage to the applicant.

THE applicant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of tin containers for the use of the Food Processing Industry. THE respondent Ms. Prerna Sen is an architect engaged in providing architectural services and inter alia undertaking the job of renovation of office premises, etc. Around the first week of May, 1994 the respondent visited the office of the applicant and represented that she was competent and had the requisite resources, men and material and infrastructural facilities to undertake the job of renovation of the office of the applicant and that she would maintain high standards of quality, precision and performance. The applicant thereupon issued work orders for the facade for a value of Rs. 1,35,000/-, for landscaping for a value of Rs. 80,000/- and for furnishing the Managing Director''s office for a value of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The respondent further represented that if she was paid an advance she would complete the job in all respects upon which an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was given by the applicant over the period 16th May, 1994 to 31st March, 1995. Besides this, the applicant issued to the respondent cement, steel and other construction material the cost of which was about Rs. 70.000/-. The applicant has, therefore, stated that in the aggregate an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- stood paid to the respondent. According to the applicant, the respondent completed only the facade work and that too with a number of "defects, deficiencies and short- comings". No work in regard to the landscaping and furnishing of the Managing Director''s office was carried out by the respondent. Styling the omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent as restrictive and unfair trade practices under Section 2(o) and Section 36A of the Act, the applicant has sought compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- (Rs. 2,10,000 + Rs. 70,000 - Rs. 1,35,000) besides an amount of Rs. 25.000/- towards loss and damages suffered by it. The applicant has also sought interest on the amounts due and costs.

The respondent refused service of the Commission''s notice, when Mr. Satish Saxena, the Senior Executive of the applicant Company went to the residence of the respondent to serve the notice Dasti. Mr. Satish Saxena filed an affidavit to this effect in the Commission on 5th September, 1997.

THE respondent did not put in her appearance nor did she file any reply to the compensation application. Proceedings, therefore, against the respondent continued ex- parte. THE applicant furnished its evidence in the form of the affidavit of Sh. R.L. Sabharwal, its General Manager (H.R.D. and Works). We gave a hearing to Mr. Praveen Mittal, Advocate for the applicant. The complainant application supported by the affidavit in evidence of Sh. R.L. Sabharwal, General Manager in the applicant Company stands uncontroverted because of the intentional failure on the part of the respondent to appear at the hearings and to defend herself against the allegations in the compensation application. We have no option except to accept the averments of the applicant and the affidavit of Mr. R.L. Sabharwal as evidence. It is manifest from the said evidence that the respondent after having made a representation about the quality of her service and performance did not live upto it and that further she failed to take up the work relating to landscaping and furnishing of the Managing Director''s office. Furthermore, even the work relating to the facade has been done with a number of defects and deficiencies. The respondent has, therefore, indulged in unfair trade practices of deficiency in service attracting Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act and in restrictive trade practices of manipulating the conditions of delivery of service attracting Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act. Undoubtedly, the said unfair and restrictive trade practices have caused loss and damage to the applicant. The applicant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the respondent. The compensation application was filed on 11th April, 1997. Interest on the aforesaid amount at 18% per annum shall be payable from 11th April, 1997 upto the date of payment. The applicant is also entitled to cost of litigation which we assess at Rs. 2,000/-. The respondent shall pay the aforesaid amounts within 4 weeks of the date of this order and file an affidavit in compliance within the same time frame. Application disposed of.