SHASHI PRABHA UPPAL Vs. SIPANI AUTOMOBILES
MONO POLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
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.
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.
(3.) 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.