Back
MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE
PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman &
Ms. Moksh Mahajan, Member
DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION
AND REGISTRATION)—Complainant/Applicant
versus
GILL INTERNATIONAL LTD.—Respondent
R.T.P.E. No. 05 of 1997 and C.A. No. 132 of 1997—Decided on 10.9.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate.
For the Applicant :Mr. C.B.N. Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Uchit Bhandari, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of refunding security deposits to consumers and the need for supporting evidence in compensation claims.
Headnote:
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act - LPG Gas Supply - Sections 36B, 2(o)(ii), 36A, 10(a)(iv), 36B(d), 37, 36D - The court discussed the non-refunding of security deposits to consumers and the appointment letters' clauses. The court discharged the notice of enquiry based on the undertaking given by the respondent for refunding the security deposits to the customers.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint was filed by the Director General under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act against M/s. Gill International for not refunding security deposits to consumers and other trade practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court discharged the notice of enquiry based on the undertaking given by the respondent for refunding the security deposits to the customers. The compensation application was disposed of due to lack of supporting evidence for the claimed losses.
Issues: Non-refunding of security deposits, overcharging of transportation, unutilized booking forms, and less supply of LPG gas cylinders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the undertaking given by the respondent for refunding the security deposits to the customers and the lack of supporting evidence for the claimed losses.
Final Decision: The notice of enquiry was discharged, and the compensation application was disposed of due to lack of supporting evidence for the claimed losses.
Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman—The present complaint has been filed by the Director General (Investigation and Registration) under Sections 36B, 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereafter referred to as Act). Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Gill International is engaged in the business of LPG gas supply. It appointed J.N. Petrochemicals Pvt. Limited (R-2) as its distributor in terms of letter of appointment dated 26.6.1993. M/s. J.N. Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. in turn appointed M/s. Balaji Enterprises (informant) as a dealer for the product of R-1 as authorised. R-2 also appointed Hitendra Gas Agency (R-3) as its sub-dealer. It is the grievance of the DG that R-1 has not refunded the security of Rs. 8,59,325/- recovered from the customers. In addition it has also not refunded a sum of Rs. 4,800/- in respect of 60 unused application forms including freight charges in the bills raised against the informant. The said trade practices are stated to be covered under Sections 2(o)(ii) and 36A of the Act.
2. On the basis of the above facts, the Notice of Enquiry was issued under Sections 10(a)(iv), 36B(d), 37 and 36D of the Act to the respondents.
3. The main grievance of the DG is in respect of the non-refunding of the security of the consumers taken in terms of the appointment LPG distributor. The relevant clauses of the appointment letters as LPG dealer dated 20.9.1993 reads as under :
Clause 4 :
“At the time of releasing the Cylinder and Pressure Regulator to you, a sum of Rs. 1,550/- (Rs. one thousand five hundred and fifty only), per cylinder and pressure regulator will be charged from you (Rs. 15,000/- as refundable security and Rs. 50/- as service charge). This amount will in turn be recovered by you from your customers. This amount will be subject to any change made by M/s. Gill International Consultants. However, you can charge Rs. 150/- as service charges from your customers.
Clause 12 :
Security : Your security deposit (refundable and interest free) can be refunded under six months’ advance notice to the Company for surrendering your dealership and after producing no dues certificates from your sub-dealer.”
4. When read with the terms and conditions printed on the subscription voucher, it is found that in terms of Clause 12 the Company as well consumer is at liberty to terminate the contract at any time by giving 30 days’ notice in writing. It is stated therein that “On termination of this contract the Consumer shall forthwith return the equipment to the Company and/or the Dealer, whether or not the cylinder contains any gas and the Company or the Dealer shall thereafter refund the balance of the deposit made by the consumer with the Company after deducting therefrom such amounts, if any, as may be due to the Company. This security will be refunded in case of transfer of residence of consumer to such place where Glidan does not have any dealer/distributor. Consumer has to satisfy the Company of transfer of residence before claiming the refund of security deposits”.
5. We need not go into the question of the merits whether this Commission is required to examine the matter. Suffice it to say that the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Uchit Bhandari, under instructions (Shri Rupesh Jain, Company Secretary of R-1) has stated in the Court that the security amount will be refunded to the customers subject to furnishing the receipts in respect of the payments along with the return of the cylinders as well the regulators. It is further stated that while the aforesaid clause will not be enforced at present, it would also not be incorporated in the appointment letters/subscription forms in future. As to the other allegations they are not pressed.
6. In view of the undertaking as given in the Court the complaint in R.T.P.E. No. 5/1997 stands disposed of and the notice of enquiry is discharged. There is no order as to costs.
C.A. No. 132/1997
7. The applicant M/s. Balaji Enterprises has filed an applicatio
