There being numberprivity of companytract between the applicant and the appellant firm, the companypensation application was number maintainable.
The companytroversy must be adjudicated upon by a civil companyrt, as it relates to enforcement or breach of companytract between the parties.
In terms of acceptance, the appellant was to supply the said machine for Rs.
The order of machine in question was number placed by the applicant but by the N.A. Rubber Industries.
1 and has directed the appellant to refund to the first respondent a sum of Rs.
16.10.1990 upto the date of its payment.
2,000/ for which a receipt was given by the appellant.
5,000/ was awarded by way of companypensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the partner of the respondent firm.
53 of 1993 wherein it has allowed the application for companypensation under Section 12 B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1960 for short the MRTP Act filed by the Respondent No.
55,000/ ex factory price by May 1981 and the respondent was to supply certain input companyponents like electric motor, reduction gear box and fluid companypling to be fitted to the machine by the appellant as these input companyponents were number manufactured by the appellant.
It was alleged that the respondent had paid Rs.
5,000/ .
80,184/ was paid by it to the appellant.
Based on these findings the MRTP Commission directed the appellant to refund a sum of Rs.
1,04,164/ to the respondent with interest at the rate of Rs.
Later on a sum of Rs.
An earlier application of the applicant had been closed by the Commissioner and thus the present application was barred by the principle of res judicata.
50,000/ in May 1985 and approached the appellant for taking delivery of the machine.
There is number even a single averment disclosing any unfair trade practice.
18 per annum w.e.f.
Allegations made that old second hand parts had been fitted in the machine were also accepted.
According to the respondent the aggregate amount of Rs.
1,04,164/ with interest 18 per annum plus companypensation of Rs.
Appellant in its detailed reply apart from replying on merits took five preliminary objections That since the order was placed on the appellant in the year 1980 i.e. before the amendment of MRTP Act relating to unfair trade practice Section 36 A and companypensation Section 12 B which were inserted with effect from 1st August, 1984, the action was number maintainable as these amendments do number have retrospective operation and, therefore, the companypensation application was number maintainable.
It was fitted with old and second hand parts and it has failed to fit the oil system and thereby appellant has indulged in unfair trade practice under Section 36 A 1 of the MRTP Act.
Aggrieved against the order of MRTP Commission the present appeal has been filed.
On 21.2.1985 the appellant informed the respondent that the machine would be ready and supplied within a week.
N.A. Rubber Industries was closed and thereafter respondent firm M s Taj Rubber Industries was started in its place.
The MRTP Commission overruled the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and came to the companyclusion that the appellant had indulged in unfair trade practices as there was abnormal and unconscionable delay in supplying the machine by almost ten years and that the machine did number work even for a single day and was suffering from various defects.
Due to certain reasons which were accepted by both the parties the machine companyld number be supplied till May 1990.
Respondent paid a sum of Rs.
Ultimately, the machine was supplied in the month of October, 1990.
Counsels for the parties have been heard at length.
23,980/ for procuring and supplying the electric motor, fluid companypling, reduction gear box etc Respondent filed an application under Section 12 B of the MRTP Act against the appellant alleging therein that the machine supplied after a companysiderable delay and it was defective, number working and old second hand machine.
5,000/ was also paid by the respondent on 16.3.1981.
Shortly stated the facts are M s N.A. Rubber Industries through its partner Shri Nasiruddin, a partner of the applicant firm respondent as well, placed an order in December, 1980 for the supply of one rubber mixing machine of size 14 x 36.
On merits, the allegations made against the appellant were companytroverted and the appellant denied its liability to companypensate the respondent.
Appellant agreed to supply the said machine to the respondent by its letter dated 10.12.1980.
BHAN, J. This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the order dated 16.5.1997 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for short the MRTP Commission in Compensation Application No.
The respondent thereafter paid Rs.
