MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 

S. C. SHARMA, Advocate, for the appellant. 

ORDER 

S. K. PARTHASARATHY. MEMBER - This order disposes of the application filed by the complainant under section 13(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) seeking review of the order of the Commission, dated 5.10.1998. 

2. It would be in order to briefly summarise the facts of the case leading to the issue of the order, dated 5.10.1998. The complainant had filed a complaint under 36B(a) of the Act charging the respondent with indulgence in unfair trade practice. According to the complainant, the action of the respondent, inter alia, in not replacing the defective meters promptly and billing the consumers provisionally or in an arbitrary manner constitutes an unfair trade practice. Before issue of the notice of enquiry (NoE) the matter was referred to the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DG) for enquiry and submission of a preliminary investigation report (PIR). The DG in his PIR has pointed out that the respondent has been replacing the defective meters and also rectifying the bills whenever they were wrong. However, DG observed that in respect of the complainant, the respondent had rendered poor service and recommended that the Commission might consider instituting enquiry against the respondent. On perusal of the PIR, the Commission on 22.7.1998, noted that there was no evidence to come to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case for issuing a notice of enquiry (NoE) and directed that an opportunity for personal hearing and regulation 20(2) of the MRTP Regulations, 1991 might be given to the complainant. 

3. After giving a hearing to the complainant the Commission on 9.10.1998 recorded that since the application of the complainant under section 12B of the Act on the same cause of action had already been registered, and in disposing of that application, the Commission would examine the allegation of the unfair trade practice, the complaint under section 36B of the Act need not be pursued separately. Against this order of the Commission the complainant has filed this review application. 

4. In the review application, the complainant pointed out that no copy of the PIR was given to the complainant as required under regulation 22. A copy of the PIR, was, therefore, given to the complainant. Thereafter, the arguments of the Advocate for the complainant on the review application were heard. 

5. We have already come to the conclusion, after perusing the PIR submitted by the DG that there was no evidence on record to support the allegations of unfair trade practice by the respondent, and there was no prima facie case for issuing a notice of enquiry (NoE) in this case. The PIR indicated that the defective meters have been replaced by the respondent and the pendency was only 4%. Even in the case of the complainant, the wrong bill was corrected and the credit of Rs. 5,854.12 was given. Even though a single or an isolated action can give rise to a charge of unfair trade practice, every such single action need not constitute an unfair trade practice. We are of the view that the order passed on 22.7.1998 is correct and there is no justification for recalling it or modifying it. Since the complainant application under section 12B has already been admitted by the Commission, in order to ensure that the claim of the applicant in that case for compensation is not prejudiced, it has already been directed that the compensation application would continue to its logical conclusion. 

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the review application filed by the complainant deserves to be, and is hereby rejected without and order as to cost. 

7. Pronounced in open court on 25 August, 1999.