M/S. PREMIER ENGINEERS versus M/S. TAJ RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 12-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. PREMIER ENGINEERS 
v. 
MIS. TAJ RUBBER INDUSTRJES AND ANR. 
AUGUST 12, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.) 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, I 960. 
Sections 2(u), I 2-B, 36-A-Unfair Trade Practice-Complaint filed 
alleging unfair trade practice--Cryptic application lacking particulars-
Complaint not disclosing any actual loss or injury caused to con1plainant-
Held, to plead and prove actual loss or i1y·ury caused to consumer is sine 
qua non for invoking the provisions of Section 36-A-ln the facts, order of 
commission awarding con1pensation set aside. 
A 
B 
c 
Respondent no. I through its predecessor-in-interest company placed 
D 
an order with appellant in December, 1980 for supply of one rubber 
mixing machine of size 14" x 36" which was required to be fitted with 
certain input components to be supplied by respondent no. I. Due to 
certain reasons, the machine could not be supplied till May, 1990 and "'8S 
ultimately supplied in October, 1990. Respondent filed application under 
Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trace Practices Act, 1960 
against the appellant alleging unfair trade practice under Section 36-A(I) 
E 
of the MRTP Act on the ground that the machine was supplied after 
considerable delay; that it was defective, non-working and old/second 
hand machine fitted with old/second hand parts; and that 'oil system' was 
not fitted in the machine. MRTP Commission held appellant guilty of 
unfair trade practice as there was abnormal and unconscionable delay 
in supplying the machine by almost 10 years and that the machine did 
not work even for a single day and was defective and directed appellant 
to refund Rs. 1,04,164 to the respondent with interest@ 18% per annum 
and also awarded Rs. 5000 by way of compensation for mental agony and 
harassment suffered. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. To aver as well as prove that actually any loss or injury 
F 
G 
was caused to the consumer is the sine qua non for invoking the provisions 
H 
597 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 
1960. (602-F-G) 
B 
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP Commission & Ors., (2003) 1 
SCC 129 and Hindustan Ciba Geigy v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 
134, relied on. 
2. In the application filled by the applicant/respondent apart from 
saying that the defective machinery fitted with old/second hand parts had 
been supplied after considerable delay the respondent did not say a word 
regarding the actual loss and injury or a notional loss caused to the 
C 
respondent. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any actual loss 
or injury was caused to the respondent. The application filed by the 
applicant/respondent was not only cryptic but lacked in particulars to fall 
within the definition of unfair trade practice as defined in Section 36-A 
read with Section 2(u) of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Commission has also 
D 
E 
not recorded any finding as to whether any actual loss or injury or a 
notional loss was caused to the respondent. (602-C-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3640of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.97 of the Monopolies and 
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in Compensation 
Application No. 53 of 1993. 
Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh and A.K. Mishra for the Appellant. 
Irshad Ahmad for the Respondent No. I. 
F 
Ashok Bhan, Ms. Sunita Shanna, D.S. Mahra, P. Panneswaran for the 
G 
H 
Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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. 53 of 1993 wherein it has allowed the application for compensation under 
Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1960 
lfor short "the MRTP Act"] filed by the Respondent No. I and has directed 
the appellant to refund to the first respondent a sum of Rs. 1,04, 164 with 
, 
MIS. PREMIER ENGINEERS v. MIS. TAJ RUBBER INDS. [BHAN, J.] 599 
interest @ l 8% per annum plus compensation of Rs. 5,000. 
Shortly stated the facts are: 
Mis 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"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.