ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The present proceedings have arisen out of the application of the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG in short), under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The DG received a complaint from one Shri Rattan Lal Premi, resident of Krishna Ganj (West), Pilkhua-245304, Ghaziabad, who purchased four books from respondent No. 1, vide Cash Memo No. 13675 dated 26th June, 1995. The informant made a complaint as a consumer in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi and subsequently he addressed his complaints to the President of the Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti, Pilkhua, wherein he alleged that the respondents had charged higher prices for the books than the printed prices. He further alleged that the respondents were charging revised prices for the books by putting stickers on the original prices. On the basis of the complaint filed by the informant Shri Rattan Lal Premi of which DG took cognizance, the Notice of Enquiry was issued on 28th August, 1997.
2. The learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that admittedly the informant Shri Rattan Lal Premi filed four complaints, one before this Commission and three complaints before the Consumer Forums which is evident from reading of the cross-examination of the informant. The said statement may be reproduced as below :
“On Oath
I have seen the affidavit sworn by me. It bears my signature.
Cross-examination by Shri jeevan Prakash, Advocate for the respondent
I have filed a case against this very respondent in the Consumer Forum also. I file the cases wherever there are unfair trade practices. I have alleged unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent in . relation to some books and publications. I have filed two or three cases against the respondent. I can produce copies of the complaints filed by me relating to same cause of action before the Consumer Forum (The witness is directed to produce the same within eight weeks). I bought four books from the respondent. Both new and old books were purchased. The year of publication is not given in the books whereas the price of the four books was Rs. 69.50, the respondent charged Rs. 116/- from me. I have received the refund of the amount. I have filed an appeal in the State Redressal Commission. I have stated in the appeal that the loss suffered by me has not been made good. I have not made any mention of the cases filed by me in my complaint to the DG. It is correct that I have filed a complaint in the Consumer Forum in 1995 and I filed one in 1996 also and this complaint was filed to the DG in 1997. The respondent initially purchased a book for Rs. 8/- and it got commission also and thereafter he raised the price to Rs. 25/- and sold. The respondent is not justified in raising the price after the book has been printed and made available for sale. I am a journalist and I sell books also and I am also a social worker. I purchased these books for my own use. It is not correct that I asked the respondent to pay me Rs. 10,000/-. I also work for consumer awareness.
Cross-examination closed. ROAC”
3. The informant, however, did not disclose to the DG that he had filed other complaints as referred to in his cross-examination. Be that as it may, the State Commission by order dated 24.9.2001 disposed of one such Appeal No. 223/99, Shri Rattan Lal Premi v. Pustak Mahal and Ors. on 24.9.2001. The operative portion of the order may be reproduced as below :
“Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is partly allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that in addition to the reliefs granted by the learned District Forum, the respondent is directed to discontinue the unfair trade practice of putting stickers of enhanced price on the printed price of the books. The directions of the learned District Forum . vide impugned order as modified by this Commission shall be complied with by the respondent No. 1 within 30 days of the receipt of this order failing which the respondent No. 1 will be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment. However, there is no order as to cost.
The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.”
4. A copy of the order passed by the State Commission has been placed on record. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, states that he has filed a Revision Petition (No. 817/2002) in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same is pending for final consideration. The informant has already obtained relief which is prima facie in the nature of ‘cease and desist’ order in another Forum. It will, therefore, be not necessary to continue the present proceedings. The same are, accordingly, disposed of. The Notice of Enquiry is discharged with no order as to costs.