P.C.CHANDAN vs A.B.A.SECURITY SYSTEM

THESE are two applications preferred by Shri P.C. Chandan (complainant/applicant in brief), one for institution of unfair trade practices enquiry and the other for awarding compensation alleging certain unfair trade practices against A.B.A. Security System through its Director named Shri Jaspal Singh, DC-18, Visakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (respondent in brief), under Sections 36A and 10(a)(i) and Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Act in brief).

FOR proper adjudication of this enquiry, it would be worthwhile to summarise the contentions of the complainant as alleged in his aforesaid applications. On the assurance, undertaking and guarantee given by the respondent, who is manufacturer and supplier of security system equipments, Shri P.C. Chandan, resident of C-72, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi placed his order for purchase of security system equipments namely, Video Phone HP-IP, EL-Lock, Handset, Power Unit, Doorphone DP-3P from the respondent for his security on the respondent, who is the manufacturer and supplier of the aforesaid goods on 25.12.1995 and paid an amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards advance money. According to Shri Chandan the respondent assured him that the equipments were of high standard and carried full warranty of one year. Since the total value of the equipments was Rs. 25,000/-, the complainant paid rest of the money in two instalments of Rs. 8,480/- vide Cheque No. 618014, and Rs. 8,520/- in cash to the respondent on 17.1.1996. The security system was installed at the house of the complainant by one Shri D. Prakash, Sales-cum-Installation Engineer of the respondent.

Soon after installation, the said security system did not function well. The complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent and Shri D. Prakash visited the premises of the complainant and removed the equipments for repair and a receipt was issued by him on 22.5.1996.

THEREAFTER, the complainant repeatedly requested the respondent through telephone calls and written letter to re-instal the security system duly repaired but the same was not re-installed. Left with no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice on the respondent vide Regd. A.D. No. 0733 dated 5.11.1996 with the advise to re-instal the aforesaid security system at the residence of the complainant within 7 days, failing which legal action in the Court of Law will be taken at the risk and cost of the respondent but the same has not been re-installed. Left with no other alternative, the complainant approached this Commission by filing a complaint under Section 36-A read with Section 10(a)(i) of the MRTP Act, 1969. Since the complainant has suffered pecuniary losses on account of the unfair trade practices of the respondent, the complainant filed another application for compensation. The Commission on receipt of the aforesaid complaints issued Notice of Enquiry under Sections 36A, 10(a)(i), 36B(a) and 37 and notice of compensation application under Section 12B of the Act. On 3.10.1997, Shri Jaspal Singh, Director of the respondent Company appeared and stated that he is merely an employee of the respondent and the Notice of Enquiry should be sent to the respondent. Since the Notice of Enquiry for the main complaint petition and notice for the compensation application had been received by the respondent, it was directed to file its reply to both within 4 weeks under copy to the complainant/applicant.

THEREAFTER, neither the Director of the respondent Company nor the respondent Company put in its appearance before this Commission inspite of sufficient opportunities given to it. Keeping in view the conduct of the respondent, the proceedings against it were set ex-parte on 28.8.1998. The complainant/applicant filed his evidence in the form of affidavits of his 3 witnesses along with supporting documents. The complainant/applicant in his affidavit reiterated the stand taken by him in his complaints. Shri Rajiv Jha deposed on oath that he was working as domestic servant of Shri Chandan and the security system was installed by Shri D. Prakash, Sales-cum-Installation Engineer of the respondent and later on the same was removed by the Engineer for repairs in his and Shri Arun Dadwal''s presence. Shri Arun Dadwal, in his affidavit has deposed that he was executing the construction work at Shri Chandan''s house and the security system was installed by Shri D. Prakash, Sales-cum-Installation Engineer of the respondent and later on the same was removed by the Engineer for repairs in his and Shri Rajiv Jha''s presence. I heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by Mr. M. Khan, Advocate for the complainant/applicant. I have gone through the averments made in the main petition and the compensation application and have also gone through the documents annexed.

THIS is a case of non-rebuttal. The respondent absented himself right from the beginning of the case till final arguments and have not even filed their reply to the notice/Notice of Enquiry.

I found that the controversy in this enquiry rests with the installation of security system equipments such as Video Phone HP-1P, EL Lock, Handset, Power Unit and Door Phone DP-3P at the residence of the complainant/applicant for his safety on receipt of full payment of Rs. 25,000/- by the respondent. Soon after installation, the security system equipments did not function well according to the assurance, undertaking and guarantee given by the respondent. On the complaints made by the complainant/applicant, the same were removed by Shri D. Prakash, Sales-cum-Installation Engineer of the respondent for repairs. The security system equipments were never re-installed after repairs for the reasons best known to the respondent inspite of repeated telephonic/written requests made by the complainant/applicant. From the above, it is established that the respondents made false representation/promise that security system equipments were manufactured with great/proper care and caution and will last for many years. Since the same did not function well and was removed by the respondent for repairs and was never re-installed, it amounted to adoption of unfair method or deceptive practice besides a case of false representation concerning the uses and benefits of its security services. All the above acts of the respondents attracted the provisions of Section 36A and Clauses (ii), (iv) and (vi) of Section 36A(i) of the MRTP Act, 1969 which relates to false representation of the standard, quality or grade of the goods in question. Hence, it is established that the respondents have indulged in unfair trade practices, which are prejudicial to the public interest, or to the interest of any consumer or consumers generally and to the interest of complainant in this case. Accordingly, I pass a cease and desist order directing the respondent not to indulge in the same or similar unfair trade practices as alleged in the Notice of Enquiry in future.

It goes without doubt that the complainant has suffered monetary losses on account of above unfair trade practices indulged in by the respondent and is entitled to relief. I direct the respondent to refund Rs. 25,000/- along with 18% interest on the amounts from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

IN the prayer clause of the application, the applicant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. I am not agreeable to award such huge amount in the light of 18% interest allowed on the deposited amount. However, I am agreeable to award Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment. IN addition, I allow Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the case. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts within 6 weeks from the date of this order and file an affidavit of compliance within 2 weeks thereafter, which shall not be later than 8 weeks from the date of this order. A copy of this order will be sent to both the parties under R.P.A.D. Ordered accordingly.