Misrepresentation as the sole selling agent and failure to disclose the re-conditioned nature of the engine constitutes unfair trade practice.

Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President— The appellant sold a Kirloskar Engine and Pumpset to the respondent for Rs. 8,650/-. The Engine and Pumpset were found to be re-conditioned. When the complainant asked for refund of the amount, the appellant offered to refund the money. The complainant, however, felt that he had been taken for a ride and approached the District Forum-I.

2. The plea of the O.P., appellant before us, was that what was sold was a re-conditioned engine and not a new one. It was also highlighted that offer of refund of the money had been made without any delay. After hearing both the parties the D.F. allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to refund Rs. 3,650/- and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- besides Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation on the complainant returning the engine to the O.P. Aggrieved by the order the O.P. has preferred this appeal.

3. We notice two important features in this case namely, (i) in the cash memo the engine was not described as re-conditioned implying that it was passed on a new engine, and (ii) in the cash memo the appellant described its concern as sole selling agent of Kirloskar Engine which is factually untrue. The complainant placed on record a letter received from the principles M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engine Limited informing him that the O.P. is not their authorised dealer let alone being a sole distributor. The contention of Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Counsel for the appellant, is that it is a usual practice in the trade to describe one’s concern as sole selling agent or authorised dealer even though one may not be so. He also submitted that offer of refund of the amount was made in reply to the notice and it was fairly conceded that the engine sold was a re-conditioned one. We find no merit in these submissions. We cannot easily think of a better instance of unfair trade? practice than to represent that the dealer is sole I selling agent or authorised dealer when infact he is not. Admittedly the price of the new engine is Rs. 9,500/- as stated in the grounds of appeal, The sale having been made for Rs. 8,650/- appears to be the bait to make the offer attractive. If what was sold was a re-conditioned engine, there is no reason not to mention that fact in the cash memo. We find no case for interference. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Appellant be informed.

Appeal dismissed in limine.

_