DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION Vs. SARANSH TELE-INFO SERVICE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) under Sec.36b (d) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against Saransh Tele-Info Service Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi was issued 26.5.1994 charging that it indulged in unfair trade practices falling within the meaning of 36a (ii), (iv) and (vi) of the Act. The NOE was based on the Preliminary Investigation Report submitted by the Director General of Investigation and Research (the DG for brief) after enquiring into the complaint filed by one Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and one Dr. N. C. Singhal.

(2.) The respondent, namely, Saransh Tele- Info Service Pvt. Ltd. , claiming to be a link between potential buyers and sellers, companies/ individuals to register themselves to avail of sponsoring of clientele on payment of fees. The respondent offered 100 percent money back guarantee if it failed to sponsor clientele during the contract period of twelve months. The fee was Rs.1,200/- for the contract period of one year. On investigation, it was found that in respect of the complainants the respondent failed to sponsor any clientele nor did it refund the money on the expiry of the contract period. The NOE could not be served as the Post Office returned the concerned registered letter stating that the addressee was not available at the address given. Since efforts to trace the respondent at the known address where it was functioning did not succeed, the Director General was directed by the Commission to serve the notice through publication in newspapers. Accordingly, notice was published in the Hindustan dated 16.8.1996 and the Indian Express dated 17.8.1996. The respondent failed to appear before the Commission to participate in the enquiry. It was decided to proceed with the enquiry ex parte against the respondent. The Director General filed an affidavit of evidence on 15.1.1998 in which he has affirmed the facts contained in the Preliminary Investigation Report.

(3.) In the absence of participation of the respondent in the Enquiry despite the publication of NOE in the newspapers for its information, I have carefully gone through the records of the case as well as the arguments addressed by the learned Advocate for the DG. From the documents referred to in the affidavit, it is clear that the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practice of soliciting business on the promise that the applicants registered with it would be provided with clients for a period of one year failing which the fees collected would be refunded. In the case of Dr. Manoj Gupta it was clear that he was not provided with any clients nor was he returned the money as per 100% money back guarantee scheme. In the circumstances of the case, I hold that Saransh Tele-Info Service Pvt. Ltd. which functioned from B-20, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-110024 in the year 1992 is guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice falling within the meaning of 36a (ii) , (iv) and (vi) of the Act. The respondent is hereby directed to "cease and desist" from indulging in that practice. Any violation of this direction will be construed as a violation of the order of the Commission and the respondent will be liable for action for disobedience of the orders of the Commission.