Competition Act: Where respondents had issued misleading advertisement about standard and quality of services proposed to be provided by them in their house project, it could be inferred that they were guilty of adopting unfair trade practice
Competition Act: Complainant could not be awarded compensation in absence of any tangible evidence to prove loss or damage
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 98 (CAT)
COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deepak Kumar Verma
v.
Shourya Towers (P.) Ltd.
G.S. SINGHVI, CHAIRMAN
UTPE NO. 150 OF 2008
CA NO. 131 OF 2008
OCTOBER 29, 2014
Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair Trade Practices - Inquiry into by Commission - Respondents issued advertisement and invited members of public to book residential flats in their project by making promise about availability of sanctioned plan and schedule of construction - Appellant/complainant a retired senior citizen, submitted an application and deposited amount for allotment of flat in respondents project - It appeared that respondents had withheld material documents/ information and not explained unilateral increase in area of flat and cost thereof - Complainant not feeling satisfied with promise made by respondents to complete building within a reasonable time, sent letter to respondents with request that amount deposited by him be refunded with interest - However, respondents did not return money despite specific demand made by complainant - Whether respondents had issued misleading advertisement about standard and quality of services proposed to be provided by them in relation to their project - Held, yes - Whether thus respondents were guilty of adopting unfair trade practice - Held, yes [Paras 15 & 16]
Section 12B, read with section 36B, of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Power of Commission to award compensation - Whether where complainant had not produced any tangible evidence to prove loss or damage, his prayer for award of compensation could not be accepted - Held, yes [Para 17]
Competition Act: Complainant could not be awarded compensation in absence of any tangible evidence to prove loss or damage
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 98 (CAT)
COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deepak Kumar Verma
v.
Shourya Towers (P.) Ltd.
G.S. SINGHVI, CHAIRMAN
UTPE NO. 150 OF 2008
CA NO. 131 OF 2008
OCTOBER 29, 2014
Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair Trade Practices - Inquiry into by Commission - Respondents issued advertisement and invited members of public to book residential flats in their project by making promise about availability of sanctioned plan and schedule of construction - Appellant/complainant a retired senior citizen, submitted an application and deposited amount for allotment of flat in respondents project - It appeared that respondents had withheld material documents/ information and not explained unilateral increase in area of flat and cost thereof - Complainant not feeling satisfied with promise made by respondents to complete building within a reasonable time, sent letter to respondents with request that amount deposited by him be refunded with interest - However, respondents did not return money despite specific demand made by complainant - Whether respondents had issued misleading advertisement about standard and quality of services proposed to be provided by them in relation to their project - Held, yes - Whether thus respondents were guilty of adopting unfair trade practice - Held, yes [Paras 15 & 16]
Section 12B, read with section 36B, of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Power of Commission to award compensation - Whether where complainant had not produced any tangible evidence to prove loss or damage, his prayer for award of compensation could not be accepted - Held, yes [Para 17]
No comments:
Post a Comment