MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 

S. C. SHARMA, Advocate, for the applicant (review applicant) 

ORDER 

S. K. PARTHASARATHY, MEMBER - This order disposes of an application filed by the applicant in this case under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) seeking a review of the final order passed by the Commission on 30.10.1998. 

2. It would be in order to briefly summarise the facts of the case leading to the issue of the above order. The applicant constructed a building on a plot of land allotted by the respondent and applied to it on 7.6.1993 for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold. The applicant submitted the required no objection certificate from the Government to whom the property was mortgaged, and paid the second instalment of conversion charges on 9.9.1994 by depositing the amount with the State Bank of India. He had sent a letter to this effect to the respondent along with the concerned copy of the bank challan on 9.9.1994 itself. The grievance of the applicant was that till the date of filing of the compensation application, the respondent had not effected the conversion. The applicant in his compensation application has asked for a direction to the respondent to issue a conversion letter and also pay compensation for mental agony as well as the cost of the proceedings. 

3. In its final order, dated 30.10.1998, the Commission noted that the necessary conversion was effected on 21.11.1996 and observed that the case of the applicant was not dealt with promptly by the respondent. It was stated therein that the deficiency in service noticed in this case and the extent of delay do not justify the conclusion that the respondent had indulged in unfair trade practice as defined in the Act. It was also observed that the Commission expected that the respondent would take note of the facts of this case to ensure that the procedure for conversion was streamlined and applications for conversion were attended to promptly. 

4. In the review application, the applicant has pointed out that the order of the Commission, dated 30.10.1998 suffered from legal infirmity, as the correct facts were not indicated in the order. According to the applicant, at page 3 of the order, dated 30.10.1998, it has been mentioned that the applicant had furnished the information relating to the payment of second instalment only on 17.10.1996 through a letter after filing the compensation application. He further submits that since the applicant had sent the original challan as well as the intimation about the payment of second instalment on 9.9.1994 itself as evidenced by Annexure D of the compensation application, it was factually incorrect to say that the applicant furnished the information only on 17.10.96. According to the applicant, it is an unfair trade practice to misplace the applicant's file and call the payment particulars repeatedly from the applicant. He has also pointed out that the direction given to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 1,359 with six weeks has not been complied with by the respondent. 

5. We have carefully gone through the points made in the review application. The review application has been made on a misunderstanding of the order of the Commission on 30.10.1998. What was mentioned in page 3 of the order was the averment of the respondent. The sentence 'the applicant furnished the information relating to the payment of the second and final instalment only on 17.10.1996 through a letter after filing the compensation application with the Commission' is only a reproduction of the contention of the respondent. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had paid the second instalment on 9.9.1994. The order, dated 30.10.1998 clearly states that the respondent has not challenged the statement to this effect made by the applicant on affidavit. The Commission has also pointed out that the facts of the case revealed that since the original challan was to be deposited with the respondent, 'there was no co-ordination with the respondent's office to link payments with relevant case'. The Commission has taken note of the fact that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and there was delay in dealing with the case of the applicant. The Commission, however, did not consider that this justified the conclusion that the respondent indulged in unfair trade practice to fall within the definition of it as contained in the Act. In view of this, there is no justification to come to the conclusion that the order of the Commission, dated 30.10.1998 is based on factual inaccuracies. 

6. The applicant has pointed out in his review application that the direction of the Commission to refund the amount of Rs. 1,359 within six weeks has not been complied with by the respondent. It is open for the applicant to move an appropriate application to the Commission for initiating action against the respondent for any violation of direction of the Commission. 

7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the review application filed by the applicant which deserved to be and is hereby rejected.