SUNIL KUMAR ARORA vs Maitreya V.Doshi

AN aggrieved applicant, Shri Sunil Kumar Arora of Delhi (applicant in brief) filed an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act in brief) seeking compensation from Shri Maitreya V. Doshi, Managing Director of the Premier Automobiles Ltd., Mumbai (respondent in brief). The notice of compensation application was sent to the respondent returnable on 8.10.1998.

THE facts of the case as contained in the compensation application are enumerated below : The applicant booked ''Uno'' Car from the Premier Automobiles Ltd., Mumbai through its agent - Delhi Automobiles Ltd., 3/15-A, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi vide Application Form No. 0387519. He deposited Rs. 21,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 091755 dated 12.2.1996. The applicant after 1 year 8 months requested the respondent to cancel his booking vide his application dated 17.10.1997 by enclosing receipt-cum-priority card stamped and duly signed. He waited for about 4 months and then sent two reminders dated 2.2.1998 and 20.2.1998 for refund of his booking amount but the respondent never responded. Left with no other alternative, the applicant approached this Commission vide his application seeking compensation for the loss suffered.

The respondent inspite of two registered notices did not put in his appearance in the Commission. Thereafter, the applicant was given the liberty to serve a copy of the compensation application alongwith the order of the Commission dated 7.12.1998 ''Dasti'' on the respondent. The applicant filed an affidavit of service on the respondent on 9.2.1999. Since the respondent was absent on 9.2.1999 also, the proceedings against it were set ex parte.

THE applicant filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith supporting documents on 19.3.1999 reiterating his stand taken in the compensation application and the case was fixed for ex parte final arguments. I have heard the ex parte final arguments advanced by Shri Tarun Kumar Arora, brother and attorney of the applicant.

ON analysis of the material on record and the ex parte arguments advanced by the attorney of the applicant, I found that this is a case of non-rebuttal. Since the respondent has neither responded to the notice nor put in his appearance in the Commission and as per documents on record, it is withholding the booking amount of the applicant, I hold that the respondent''s action of with-holding the money of the applicant without making any steps to refund the same tantamounts to unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act. In the similar circumstances in the case of C.A. No. 271/98, the Commission has held that "in view of relevant provisions contained in Order VIII, Rules 5 and 10 of the C.P.C., the case pleaded by the applicant in his compensation application will have to be accepted qua the booking amount with interest". In view of the above, I direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the same is refunded to him. The respondent is directed to pay the aforesaid amount 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 shall be sent to both the parties by RPAD. C.A. allowed.