MAHESHWARI BROTHERS Vs. SUPER ENGINEERING CORPORATION HUF
LAWS(NR)-1996-5-1
MONO POLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Decided on May 31,1996

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dr. S. Chakravarthy, (Member) - (1.) THIS is a common order which shall dispose of the two enquiries, R. T. P. E. No. 14 of 1989, U. T. P. E. No. 264 of 1987 and Compensation Application No. 256 of 1989. One of the reasons why a common order will govern all the three cases is that the preliminary investigation report (PIR) submitted by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration (DG) is the basis on which the two enquiries have been commenced and the compensation application has been entertained. Before proceeding with the narration of the issues involved, a summary of the facts and circumstances gleaned from the PIR of the DG, the notice of enquiry (NOE) and the compensation application has been attempted in the following paragraphs.
(2.) On a complaint received from Maheshwari Brothers, the Commission directed the Director-General to cause investigation into the matter and submit its report. In its complaint, Maheshwari Brothers has alleged that Su'per Engineering Corporation, the respondent, has supplied a substandard offset printing machine and has not rendered satisfactory after-sales service. The complainant, Maheshwari Brothers, placed an order for the supply of one super offset printing machine which was shown on demonstration at Bombay by the respondent through the latter's agent, Printograph Machinery Company. The complainant has alleged that the machine supplied is different from the one shown on demonstration, that the respondent sent its mechanic twice who during his stay of about 20 days was not able to bring the machine to a running condition, that the respondent refused to send an expert mechanic on the plea that the complainant had "terrorised" the mechanic and that the machine is lying in an unworking condition. It has also been alleged that the agency of Printograph Machinery Company has been terminated by the respondent. The Director-General, after investigating into the matter, has concluded that the allegations made by the complainant, Maheshwari Brothers, have been corroborated by the agent, Printograph Machinery Company, and are prima facie established that the respondent has supplied a substandard machine to the complainant and has also not rendered satisfactory after-sales service. The Director-General has added that the services of the agent, Printograph Machinery Company, have been terminated by the respondent as the agent was also dealing in its competitive product. The Director-General has, therefore, concluded that the trade practice on the part of the respondent, in having supplied a sub-standard machine and not rendering after-sales service attracts Section 36A(1)(ii), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,1969. He has also concluded that the act of the respondent in terminating the agency of Printograph Machinery Company attracts Section 33(1)(c) of the Act.
(3.) BASED on the preliminary investigation report of the Director-General, two notices of enquiry were issued by this Commission. In respect of the charges of supply of a sub-standard machine and unsatisfactory after-sales service, the notice of enquiry was issued on January 4, 1989 (U. T. P. E. No. 264 of 1987), stating that the respondent has prima facie indulged in the unfair trade practices falling within the meaning of Section 36A(1)(i) and (viii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, causing loss and injury to the consumer.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.