1. There was a spate of advertisements, which appeared in different newspapers between the period 12.11.1990 to 13.12.1990 regarding the winning of different cars free of cost. The advertisement came from M/s. Byford Leasing located at 3, Aurbindo Marg, South Delhi. The sum and substance of the advertisements was that any prospective applicant can own new models of Premier, Maruti, Hindustan, Contessa, Classic, Ambassador or Mahendra under instalment scheme by paying the lowest margin money or trading in the used car. The application form was floated whereby the prospective applicant was to fill a form and can win the said cars by entering into "I Love my Environment" contest. The back of the application form contains 5 questionnaire out of which three correct answers could entitle him to win prizes in the final draw. The complainant Mr. H.K. Ahluwalia, r/o Shastri Nagar, Meerut lured by these offers purchased Omni Maruti from Byford under City Bank Finance Scheme and became eligible to participate in the said contest.
He won second prize which was published in Newspaper and was also confirmed by Byford Leasing Limited the respondent in its letter dated 24.12.1990. The respondent was to make payment of loan raised by the complainant with City Bank with interest i.e., Rs. 1,01,000/-. When contacted the respondent showed its inability to clear the loan because of certain financial constraints however promised to make the payment within the reasonable period. When the promises as made in the advertisement and subsequently were not fulfilled, the complainant approached the Commission for redressal of its grievances. The Commission directed the DG for conducting a preliminary investigation into the alleged trade practice of the respondent vide its order dated 31.5.1993. The DG after making inquiries submitted a preliminary investigation report dated 11.11.1993 recommending inquiry against the respondent. Accordingly, NOE was issued under Sections 36A, 36B(d) and 36D of the Act for the alleged unfair trade practices against the respondent.
2. Pursuant to the Notice of Enquiry, the respondent admitted its liability to pay the prizes/money to the complainant. It is stated that at no stage, it denied its liability and its intention to pay the prize money. In fact a sum of Rs. 59,686/- upto 30.11.1992 was credited to the account of the complainant which fact was duly communicated to him.
It was contended that the amount had not been paid on account of non-furnishing of proof of payment by the complainant to its office.
The same was also not paid till date as the complainant had filed a criminal litigation against the respondent. It was further stated that the respondent had deliquency fund with City Bank to the extent of Rs. 24,04,000/- as on 31.3.1991. The account could be cleared on furnishing of certificates to the effect that a certain part of the amount stood paid to the City Bank. In the circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the respondent were prayed to be dropped.
3. After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondents have indulged or are indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the Notice of Enquiry? (2) Whether the said unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the public interest? (3) After filing replies both to the Notice of Enquiry and the interrogatories raised by the DG, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. The DG was asked to serve the notice Dasti. Subsequently the DG furnished an application under Regulation 65(1)(i) of the MRTPC Regulations, 1991 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating therein that as per the information furnished by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana, the company has not gone into liquidation and is in operation. In view of the aforesaid report and the fact that the matter related to 1991, it was deemed appropriate to finalize the case as the respondent had shield away from defending the allegations levelled against it. Even the affidavit of evidence was not filed. The DG on its part filed an affidavit of Shri H.K. Ahluwalia by way of evidence.
4. We have given careful thought to the oral submissions made by the DG in the light of the evidence available on record. As the facts are not disputed and the respondent has admitted its liability towards the complainant we need not elaborate on the same. In this context we find that the complainant is not the only one who has suffered at the hands of the respondent, there are others who have not been paid their prizes. As per the information filed (Annexure E) the respondent had disbursed prizes against final draw to the extent of Rs. 2,16,616/- only and the ones undisbursed still remains at Rs. 8,84,186/- (Annexure F). This clearly shows that after having made the bumper sales as reflected in its trading account for the year 1991-92 at Rs. 15,94,06,840/- the respondent has not cared to honour its commitment that too on flimsy grounds. Its intention of non-fulfilment of its promises is further highlighted by non-representation of proceedings which have continued for a considerable period of time. Thus the allegations of unfair trade practice covered under Section 36A of the Act stand established. These are prejudicial to public interest.
5. As to the contention that the trade practice has since been stopped and as such the proceedings should be dropped the same is not acceptable as per report of the DG. The respondent has not gone into liquidation and is still in business. If it be so, there is no reason that it should not honour its commitment and clear its liability which is still pending.
6. The matter is however old and no material has been brought on record to show that the respondent is continuing with such practices. We will hold that respondent is directed to cease such trade practices, if already continued and desist from repeating them in future.