Sushil Kumar Jain vs BASIL SECURITY LIMITED

AN application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short Act) has been filed by one Shri Sushil Kumar Jain against M/s. Basil Security Limited through its Managing Director, Plantation Division, charging the latter with adoption of unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36-A of the Act. For having suffered a loss on account of such unfair trade practices, the applicant has claimed refund of Rs. 51,000/- paid to the party along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the damages caused to it.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on representation through one Mr. Raghuvanshi, the alleged Marketing Manager of the respondent-Company, the applicant deposited Rs. 51,000/- on the promised return of the amount along with various incentives, bonus, bonds, registered land etc. These included an amount of Rs. 1,100/- per month for five years, post-dated cheque of principal amount of Rs. 51,000/-, cash incentives Rs. 6,750/- in case the deposit is made in one instalment, income free certificate for the income derived from the investment for every five years free income tax bond certificates, land of 1500 sq. feet registered in the name of the depositor, I.T. Basil Teak Gold Bonds amounting to Rs. 14,60,750/- after expiry of 20 years, additional benefit bonds amounting to Rs. 21,55,000/- encashable after expiry of 20 years and 85 bonds shares for 17 bonds invested. The payment was made through cheque bearing No. 171239 dated 25.5.1996 drawn on Union Bank of India. Despite several reminders given to the respondent as the cheques in respect of income and principal amount were not received, the applicant approached the Commission with an application under Section 12B of the Act, as stated above.

In response to the notice, the respondent denied all the allegations levelled against it. It was stated that the post-dated cheques were given to the applicant, which were lost by it. Duplicate cheques could not be issued for want of indemnity bond as advised. In absence of any other allegation, no charge of unfair trade practice having been established against the respondent, the application being misconceived needs to be dismissed.

ON completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the CA is not maintainable for the preliminary objections taken by the respondent in its reply ? (ii) Whether the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the CA ? (iii) Whether the applicant's legal heirs have suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices ? (iv) Relief.

The respondent after filing the reply did not attend the proceedings and as such it was set ex-parte.

THE short issue in question is whether the respondent fulfilled its promise on the basis of which the applicant was lured to invest its hard-earned income with the respondent Company. While except for assertion that the applicant has not received cheques, no other evidence has been filed. THE documents filed by the respondent show that it is otherwise. Annexure-A (photo-stat copy) shows that various cheques of different amounts bearing different numbers have been issued to the applicant on various dates. THEre are as many as 58 cheques from 27.8.1996 to 27.5.2001 along with a cheque of Rs. 51,000/- bearing No. 861754. Annexure-B further reveals that the insurance cover was taken by the respondent in favour of the applicant. Vide letter dated 1.8.1996 (Annexure-C), the applicant was also informed that one Mr. T.S. Raghuvanshi confirmed having delivered the said cheques to him, as per the receipt available with it. As per another letter dated 7.3.1997, the respondent had also issued Basil Teak Gold Bonds for an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/-. What is relevant is that the applicant was also advised to furnish indemnity bond in case the cheques were misplaced or lost. THEse documents stand un-rebutted by the applicant. In any case, as advised by the respondent, the least it could have done was to furnish the indemnity bond, essential for issue of duplicate cheques. Repeated assertions in the arguments unsupported by the material in no way advances the case of the applicant. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that as far as the main grievance of the applicant that cheques have not been issued, the same has not been established against the respondent. As on facts, the case does not stand established against the respondent, preliminary objection raised on the same ground needs no comments. Accordingly, the claim for compensation in the form of damages is not allowable on the facts of the case. I, however, in the interest of equity and justice, would direct the respondent to issue the cheques for the principal amount along with other 58 cheques as were once stated to have been issued to the applicant. This could be done on furnishing an indemnity bond by the legal heirs of the deceased. Subject to the observations as made in para No. 7, the application of the applicant stands dismissed. C.A. dismissed.