Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Smt. Shashi Prabha Uppal, Ms. Rohini D. ... vs Sipani Automobiles And Anr. on 19 February, 1993
ORDER
A.N. Varma, Chairman
1. These three compensation applications are being disposed of by common order as the essential facts are identical.
2. Each of the applicants responded to an advertisement issued by Sipani Automobiles Ltd., Bangalore, the respondent, inviting booking of Montana cars by depositing the amounts specified therein. Wheels World, the second respondent, are the authorised distributors of Montana cars. The booking amounts were deposited by the applicants through bank drafts in 1987 and 1989.
3. Subsequently, however, the applicants cancelled their order and demanded refund of the amounts deposited by them. The applicants forwarded to the respondent all the relevant documents in support of their claims. It appears, faced with such request for refund, the respondent, Sipani Automobiles, wrote to the applicants that the refund was being processed and would be made within 90 days. Later, it turned out that the respondent did not mean to refund the amount.
4. It is further alleged in these applications that the respondent had made a false representation in the advertisements, had published in various newspapers a notice to the effect that the refunds were being processed and would be made within 90 days. No refund was, however, made till the date of making all these applications. In Compensation Application No. 122 of 1992, however, the respondent had even issued a cheque dated June 4, 1992, for Rs. 12,100 towards the refund of the amount deposited by the applicant, but when the cheque was presented to the respondents' bank the same was not honoured.
5. In this connection, it may be mentioned that on September 23, 1992, the Commission had directed the representative of the respondent who had appeared on that date to pay to the applicant the amount covered by the cheque issued by them (which had later been dishonoured by its bank) by means of a bank draft. The respondent refused to comply with that direction.
6. The applicants contend that Sipani Automobiles Ltd. has indulged in unfair trade practice by first promising to refund the amounts deposited by the prospective buyers within 90 days of the cancellation of their order and subsequently not honouring their commitment to grant the refund. It is further contended that the respondent has also indulged in restrictive trade practices as defined under Section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, by manipulating the conditions of delivery of the car.
7. As mentioned above, these cases have proceeded ex parte against the respondent. Each of the applicants has filed his/her affidavit in support of their claim for compensation together with the affidavit. They have also filed the relevant documents including the correspondence exchanged between the respondents and the applicants. The correspondence enclosed by the applicants along with their affidavits establishes beyond doubt that the respondent company does not dispute the claim for refund. Indeed the respondent had publicly offered that it was processing the claim for refund that the amount shall be paid within 90 days. Two years have since elapsed and the amounts still remain to be paid to the applicants. The fact that the applicants had cancelled their orders and were, therefore, entitled to claim refund of the amount deposited by them towards booking of the cars advertised by the respondent has not been disputed by the latter.
8. Each of the applicants has filed the receipt for the amount deposited by him with the respondent Sipani Automobiles. The fact of deposit stands amply established. The further allegation that the said respondent refused to refund the amount despite unequivocal representations made through letters and advertisements that refund would be processed within 90 days also stands proved. The facts established on the record clearly point to the conclusion that the respondent has been indulging in manipulating conditions of delivery. The charge of restrictive trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, has thus been fully made out against the respondent.
9. The applications are accordingly allowed. Decrees for sums of Rs. 10,000 each in favour of the applicants in C. A. Nos. 120 and 122 of 1992 and a sum of Rs. 7,000 in favour of the applicant in C. A. No. 123 of 1992 are passed against the respondent, Sipani Automobiles Ltd., Bangalore, together with interest calculated on the aforesaid amounts at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum from the expiry of 90 days from the date of cancellation of the order by the applicant in each case to the date of payment. Each of the applicants is also entitled to costs against the respondent which we assess at Rs. 1,000. The respondent shall pay these amounts to the respective applicants within one month of the receipt of this order.