ORDER
Moksh Mahajan, Member
1. The applicant is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic products. Respondent No. 1 – M/s. Master Road Lines, Delhi is a firm carrying on business of transporting goods for consideration. Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Ramprasad Master) and respondent No. 3 (Mr. Durgaprasad Tiwari) are the partners in the firm. The applicant decided to avail of the services of the respondent company for transportation of its products to various places. It sent goods of the value of Rs. 10,06,264 /- to M/s. Shriram Textiles, at 385 A130, New Krishna Cloth Market, Chandani Chowk, Delhi during the period 1995 and 1996. As the goods were not delivered within the stipulated period, the time limit of Hundies with the invoices in lieu of L/Rs given, expired. Consequently, the Bank authorities returned the documents having been dishonoured. Several efforts made in this regard failed and the applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent for delivery of goods. For non-fulfilment of its contractual obligation the applicant has contended that for misrepresentation on its part regarding its services, the respondent has adopted and indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) for the heavy losses suffered on account of such trade practice, it needs to be compensated under Section 12B of the Act. The extent of loss, damage or injury detailed in the application is as under :
Particulars of loss, damage or injury and the amount payable–
(a) Value of goods sent
(as per statement
attached) -- 10,06,264.00
(b) Transportation
(approx.) insurance
charge paid -- 30,000.00
(c) Interest at 18% p.a.
Gross during 1.4.1995
to 31.8.1998 -- 5,79,665.00
(d) Incidental expenses
(including legal
charges) -- 5,000.00
-------------
16,20,929.00
-------------
2. The notice issued under Section 12B of the Act came back with the postal remarks “Left”. As the notice could not be served through the ordinary process it was served by publication in two newspapers namely “The Hindu” of 9.2.2000 and Vir Arjun of 22.2.2000. The respondent neither appeared before the Commission nor filed any written reply explaining the circumstances under which the goods were not delivered.
3. The applicant on its part filed photostat copies of invoices vide which the goods were sent as well the correspondence exchanged with the respondent. Photostat copies of booking of its receipts were also filed supporting the contention that the goods were duly received by the trasporter on the dates specified therein. The applicant also filed a copy of the FIR lodged with Police Authorities at Mumbai.
4. We have considered the evidence brought on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant. We have also gone through the affidavit of evidence supporting the facts stated in the application. We find that goods have been delivered to the transporters on various dates in the year 1995-96. The application on the other hand has been filed in the year 1998. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also explained the basis for admission of the application as filed. While there is sufficient material on record to support the contention of the applicant in regard to the goods having been delivered and not returned back there is no explanation forthcoming on behalf of the respondent. In fact it did not even care to respond to the notices published in the newspapers. It appears that the respondent has no defence against the allegations levelled by the applicant. This tantamounts to the charges having been admitted by the respondent. Therefore, after having procured the goods and then not delivered to the parties as per the contract shows that the respondent is guilty of the prohibited trade practices as levelled against the applicant. In the premises, as the applicant has suffered losses on account of prohibited trade practices it is required to be compensated accordingly. In view of the facts as stated above, we would direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,06,264/- towards value of goods along with rate of interest @ 12% from the date when the goods were handed over to the respondents, We would also award cost of Rs. 5,000/-towards legal expenses.
5. The respondents are directed to comply with the above order within six weeks from the date of its receipt and file an affidavit of compliance within two weeks thereafter.