LAXMANBHAI VAIJIBHAI PATEL vs DOMESTIC COAL GAS CO. PVT. LTD. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. MODEL

IN its application, the applicant has stated that it has been misled into acquiring sub-dealership of Liquefied Coal Gas (LCG) on the basis of the false representation made on behalf of the respondents. The respondents are 18 in number consisting of respondent''s company, namely, M/s. Model Domestic Coal Gas Co. Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 1) and its Directors and officials (respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 14) as well as the sole distributors M/s. Yogeshwar Gas Agency and its partners (respondent No. 15 to respondent No. 17). Respondent No. 18 Mr. Magan Lal Kalidas Christi is stated to be the regional supervising agent of R-1. It is the contention of the applicants that respondents have indulged in restrictive and unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sections 10 and 36 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,1969 (for brief the Act) and as such inquiry need to be held against them. The applicant has also demanded compensation for having suffered loss and damages as a result of trade practices adopted and indulged in by the respondents.

AS per the facts stated in the application, pursuant to the advertisement issued on behalf of the respondents for appointment of agents for sale of Liquefied Coal Gas (LCG) cylinderised gas equivalent to LPG for domestic and industrial use the applicant paid the following amounts : Rs. 25,000/- Security Deposit. Rs. 14,500/- for forms and receipts as advance. In addition to the above amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is stated to have been paid in cash. It also entered into an agreement dated 10.8.1986 with M/s. Model Domestic Coal Gas Pvt. Ltd. on 29.10.1986. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the applicant was appointed as a Sub-distributor for the area of Kolwada to sell the L.C.G. (Liquefied Coal Gas) manufactured by the respondents. It was allotted a firm quota of 5000 gas filled cylinders to be transacted as retail products in the area and was required to lift the quota regularly every calender month. On the part of the respondent company, the gas filled cylinders were to be delivered to the sole distributor at its godown. As a sub-distributor, it was allowed commission at Rs. 3.75 per cylinder. As a sub-distributor, it was authorized to register its consumers on company''s prescribed forms on their register with the maximum amount not exceeding Rs. 10/- towards registration charges as non-interest bearing deposit on its part only once. Subsequent to the aforesaid act of the respondents, neither the goods were supplied nor the amount deposited was refunded to the applicant despite several requests made in this behalf. The applicant had, therefore, no other alternative but to approach the Commission for necessary action at its end, contended the applicant.

Notice issued in respect of the Compensation Application was served by way of publication in Gujarati Sundesh and Samkalin English paper dated 26.6.2000 and in the Times of India, Hyderabad on 9.11.2000. Despite time allowed, neither the respondents attended proceedings nor they have filed any reply to the notice as issued. The respondents were set ex parte vide Commission''s order dated 14th March, 2001. Ex parte arguments were heard.

THE aforesaid case was heard along with other cognate matters in CA Nos. 246/93, 321/94, 249/93, 247/93 and 248/93. In absence of other supporting documents filed for the averments made in the application, the facts available in those cases were referred to. As stated in those cases, the respondents had set in the process of appointment of agents much before the commencement of the production of LCG. A cleverly devised advertisement concealed the fact even at the time of issue of the same no steps were taken towards the construction of the factory much less the manufacture of LCG. THE payments were collected much before the foundation stone of the factory was laid down. THE last date communicated in this respect was 27.10.1988. Continuous changes in the inauguration ceremony of the factory clearly showed that the respondent had no intention to either construct the factory or to manufacture cylinders of LCG. On the other hand by requiring the applicants to complete the formalities as well by issuing instructions for conducting the business, impression was given that the respondent was serious in its intention to provide business to the applicant as promised. It is pertinent to note that the money was stated to have been collected by the respondents but the goods were not supplied. Though it is true that the applicants had no evidence to support the payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash for which no receipt was given, the other amounts paid were supported by the numbers of demand drafts as mentioned above. R-1 kept on extending the date of supplying the business to the applicants on one pretext or the other. In a period of five years, the respondent led the applicants on the rosy path of promises without supply of products. Even the requests for refund of the amounts paid by the applicants were not acknowledged. Non-defence of the allegations on the part of the respondent shows that the same have been implicitly accepted by them. By making misrepresentation in regard to the supply of the product which was never manufactured and the amount received which has not yet been returned, the respondent clearly indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of the provisions of Section 36A of the Act. For the loss suffered by the applicants in terms of the deprivation of the returns on the amounts having been retained by the respondent it is directed to refund the amounts (after verification) received from the applicant as mentioned above along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

THE applicant is also entitled to litigation expenses at Rs. 5,000/-. No compensation in respect of the mental agony is payable in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Anr., reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 654=2000 CTJ p. 205 (S.C.) (MRTPC). Other expenses as claimed are not allowed being not proved. THE respondent is directed to comply with the above order within six weeks of receipt of the same and file an affidavit of compliance within two weeks thereafter. Application disposed of.