JASBIR SINGH AHUJA vs PAL PEUGEOT LTD.

THE applicant''s claim for compensation under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in brief), is based on the ground that the applicant has suffered a financial loss due to unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent. A notice of compensation was issued to the respondent on 11.1.2000. While respondent No. 2 has filed its reply to the notice of compensation, the other respondents neither filed their replies nor entered appearance in the Court, despite adequate opportunities given. THE respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were, therefore, set ex-parte.

IN its reply to the notice of compensation, the respondent No. 2 has denied the allegations of unfair trade practices on its part and has stated that its role was merely confined to forwarding the papers relating to the booking of the car along with bank draft for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1. It has also been submitted that this part was dutifully carried out by respondent No. 2 and further action in the matter was to be taken by respondent No. 1. It has also been stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the latter was not liable to pay any damages to the applicant for the loss allegedly suffered by him. IN view of this, the applicant moved an application for deletion of respondent No. 2 from the array of the respondents. The application was accepted and respondent No. 2 was deleted from the list of respondents. The applicant''s claim for compensation is directed mainly against respondent No. 1. The facts reveal that in response to the advertisement released by respondent No. 1, the applicant booked a Peugeot 309 car and paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through Bank Draft No. 312116 dated 19.10.1995. The payment was duly acknowledged by respondent No. 1 vide Receipt No. 68128. The applicant was also given a priority registration No. D 212/962. The applicant''s contention is that since the car was not delivered to the applicant within the promised time schedule, he cancelled the booking and applied for refund of the booking amount with interest on 11.12.1997. The applicant sent a reminder on 12.7.1999, but there was no response from respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the failure of respondent No. 1 to refund the booking amount, the respondent preferred the present application for compensation in the Commission.

It is evident from the record that the applicant booked a Peugeot 309 car and paid the booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1. There is no dispute as to the fact that the said booking was cancelled and the respondent No. 1 was requested to refund the booking amount with interest.

THE refund of the booking amount to the applicant being permissible in the event of cancellation of booking, the failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 to do so is undoubtedly a deficiency in service amounting to unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the MRTP Act. THEre being no denial on the part of respondent No. 1, the applicant can be set to have made out a case of unfair trade practices against respondent No. 1. THE applicant''s claim for refund of the booking amount, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby accepted. The applicant has, however, claimed interest at an exorbitant rate of 24% per annum which is not acceptable. In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)= IV (2000) SLT 654=2000 CTJ 205 (Supreme Court) (MRTP), interest at the rate of 12% per annum is considered reasonable. In other similar cases also, the Commission has recently awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

IN view of the above, respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation till the date of refund, within three months. C.A. disposed of.