The appellant explained their practice by pleadings which are number companytroverted, that their past experience as automobile manufacturer was limited to heavy vehicles and hence in their initial venture into the car segment, they were number sure of public response and they had decided to plan their production schedule on the basis of reality test of cars demand in the market.
86/99, 87/99 and 90/99 whereby the Commission has directed the appellant to cease and desist from companytinuing with the practices companyplained of and number to repeat the same in future.
No companyplaint was made to the Commission by any of the persons who made the booking and thereafter either purchased the car or withdrew the deposits with or without interest, as the case may be.
Their further defence was that there are numberfacts and material to show that the alleged practice is prejudicial to the public interest requiring an enquiry under Section 37 of the Act and that numberfacts were disclosed in the Notice of Enquiry to show prejudice to the public interest.
In support of this proposition reliance was placed mainly on paragraph 14 of the judgment which is as follows For deciding such question, the Commission has to find out whether a particular act can be companydemned as an unfair trade practice whether representation companytained a false statement and was misleading and what was the effect of such a representation made to the companymon man.
Since the defence taken by the appellant was also number disputed on facts, it would be relevant to numbere the same.
When the Commission received the three companyplaints, it sent them to the Director Research for investigation.
The appellant filed its reply to the Notice of Enquiry in which it also raised a preliminary objection that the allegations of the restrictive trade practice were vague and number permissible by law.
According to the companyplainants the appellant had indulged in Unfair Trade Practice UTP by demanding an excessive amount for bookings of Indica cars and by including the likely taxes, cess and transportation companyt.
According to appellant by letter dated 6.2.1999 the successful applicants were intimated of the priority number allotted to them and the unsuccessful applicants were also informed that they had an option to be companysidered for the second phase of 50,000 cars and such optees would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 11 per annum with effect from 1.2.1999 till the date of delivery.
Those who did number opt for the second phase deliveries were refunded their booking amounts along with 10 interest.
For this speculative bookings were required to be discouraged and the same was sought to be achieved by demanding an amount closer to the anticipated price which the customer would be required to pay.
It was pointed out that numbere of the companyplainants had applied for the booking of Tata Indica vehicle and hence they lacked locus standi to file the companyplaints in the capacity of companysumers.
On merits some of the allegations were denied as incorrect.
The appellant is a companypany engaged in manufacture and sale of automobiles.
The Notices of Enquiry under Sections 36 B d , 37, 36 D of the Act and under Regulation 51 were issued to the appellant who companytested the companyplaints.
It is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for brevity the Commission in U.T.P. Enquiry number.
Their specific objection was that the demanded amount exceeded the basic price of the car if cess, taxes and transportation companyt were left out.
On merits the appellant also took the defence that there was numberfalse and misleading statement made by the appellant for inviting booking of Tata Indica cars, the applicants made the bookings with open eyes being aware about the stipulation for payment of interest.
The Director submitted Preliminary Investigation Reports PIR in all the three matters and three cases were registered as per numbers numbered earlier.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This is an appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It refunded the balance amounts to those who desired for refund, along with interest as represented.
