MATTER OF PAVITRA ELECTRONICS vs State

A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued on 30.1.1996 to Pavitra Electronics and Beltek India Ltd., NOIDA under Section 36B(d) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) charging them with indulgence in unfair trade practices falling under Section 36A of the Act. The NOE was issued on the basis of a preliminary investigation report (PIR) submitted by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (the DG) pursuant to a complaint received from Shri Kedar Singh Bhandari, Gole Market, New Delhi.

THE facts of the case in brief may be summarised as below : Shri K.S. Bhandari had purchased a TV of Beltek from Pavitra. Electronics on 13.12.1993. THE TV set was manufactured by Beltek India Limited, respondent No. 2. In September, 1994 the TV set went out of order and the complaint was lodged with M/s. Pavitra Electronics who failed to render after sale service. On the intervention of the DG, the set was repaired by respondent 2 and the TV set was not being delivered to the complainant unless he signed a letter of satisfaction. According to the NOE the action of the respondents amounted to unfair trade practice in terms of Section 36A as well as 36A(1)(viii) of the Act. Beltek India Ltd. respondent 2 filed the reply to the NOE in which the following main points were made : (1) In response to a telephonic enquiry, the complainant was advised that the TV set could be got repaired either from respondent 2 or from the dealer from whom the set was purchased. On receipt of the letter from the DG and in pursuance of a policy, the respondent duly rectified the set and the complainant was contacted with the information that the set could be collected. THE respondent had only asked the complainant to make a note that he had received the set in "OK condition". THE complainant was satisfied and made an endorsement "OK. TV set received" on 10.6.1995. Later on the complainant insisted that the set should be replaced and cut out the endorsement refusing to take the set. (2) THEre has been no deficiency in service, material irregularity and misleading warranty on behalf of the respondent. (3) Because of an unfortunate death of one of the partners of respondent 1 Pavitra Electronics has not been running smooth business and the complainant seems to have been put to some inconvenience which was neither intentional nor deliberate. While regretting the inconvenience care will be taken that no such harassment is caused to any such customer. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the NOE ? (2) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to public interest or to the consumers generally?

On behalf of the DG summons were issued to the informant, Shri K.S. Bhandari. Despite sufficient opportunities the witness did not attend the enquiry. In view of this the DG proposed to rely only on documentary evidence. The proceedings against respondent 1 were set ex parte as it failed to file a reply to the NOE and did not attend the hearings of the Commission. On behalf of respondent No. 2 the affidavit of Mr. Srivastava the Law Officer of Beltek India was filed.

I gave a hearing to Ms. Renu Sehgal, Advocate for the DG and Mr. T.C. Srivastava", Law Officer of Beltek India Limited. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and evaluated the evidence on record.

THE charges against the respondents as contained in the NOE were that the TV set purchased by Mr. K.S. Bhandari, the informant in this case went out of order and the respondent dealer failed to render satisfactory after-sale service. Further when the set was repaired by respondent 2 it was not delivered to the informant on the ground that he refused to give a letter of undertaking that he would not complain against the respondent. On behalf of the DG during the enquiry no warranty card has been produced to establish to the procedure for availing of after- sale service. According to respondent 2 after- sale service could be availed of either from it or from the dealer from whom the set was purchased. In this case admittedly the set was satisfactorily repaired by respondent 2 and there is no evidence to show that it had refused to do so earlier before the matter was referred to it by the DG. THE respondent No. 2 has denied that it had ever insisted that the informant should give a letter of undertaking that he was satisfied with the repairs and he would not complain against the company. According to it, the consumer had to write on the call-back card before taking delivery of the TV set that the TV set had been satisfactorily repaired. I do not see any valid objection for adopting such a procedure. THEre is no evidence to establish that the respondent 2 had asked for a letter of undertaking as alleged in the NOE. THE DG could not produce the informant as a witness in this case despite several opportunities given to him. In the absence of the appearance of the informant and denial of opportunity to the respondent 2 to establish its case by way of cross-examination of the informant the original complaint cannot be totally relied upon. Since the TV set has been satisfactorily repaired and was also delivered to the customer it is not possible to hold that the respondents indulged in any action which can be construed as unfair trade practice under Section 36A(1)(viii) of the Act. While a single act of deficiency in service cannot under all circumstances be treated as an unfair trade practice, in order to pass any order under Section 36D of the Act it has to be established that any proven unfair trade practice is prejudicial to public interest or to the interest of any consumer or consumers generally. No other evidence has been led by the DG to establish unfair trade practice prejudicial to public interest or to the interest of the consumers excepting the investigation report which was done pursuant to the complaint of the informant who also could not be produced as a witness during the enquiry. In the absence of any evidence of refusal or the part of respondent 1 to attend to the TV set it will not be fair to pass any order against respondent 1 even though the proceedings were set ex parte against it. The respondent 2 in its counter affidavit while conceding the possibility of deficiency in service in this case on the part of respondent 2 because of the death of the partner of respondent 1 and has also assured that it would take necessary steps to ensure that no harassment was caused to any customer. In the above premises, I hold that the charges levelled against the respondents have not been established and direct that the NOE issued against them be discharged. There is no order as to costs. NOE discharged.