MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 

SAUD AHMAD, ADG, for the Director General. 

None for the respondent. 

ORDER 

SARDAR ALI, MEMBER. - This order shall dispose of an Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 108 of 1997 instituted under sections 36B(d) and section 36D of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against Maharaja Group of Companies, Reti Powli, Mahedipatnam, Hyderabad (the respondent for brief). On the basis of a complaint filed by Dilsukh Nagar Consumer Council against the respondent, Commission directed the Director General of Investigation and Registration to investigate into the matter and submit his report within 15 days. The Director General of Investigation and Registration (the DG for brief) accordingly investigated the matter and submitted its report to the Commission recommending for issuance of notice of enquiry against the respondent under section 36A(3)(b) of the Act. 

2. The Commission after perusing the report of the DG issued notice of enquiry against the respondents which reads as under : 

"WHEREAS a complaint has been received from Dilsukh Nagar Consumer Council stating that advertisement in Deccan Chronicle, dated 15.8.1994 offering membership of a scheme for owning a car/van in 30 months thereby indulging in unfair trade practices. 

AND WHEREAS the matter has been investigated by Director General of Investigation and Registration who has found that the respondent has indulged in the unfair trade practices falling under section 36A(3)(b) of the MRTP Act." 

3. It has been alleged in the complaint that the respondent has published in the impugned advertisement, dated 15.8.1994 under the heading : 'Do you desire to own Maruti Car or Van ?" It has also been mentioned in the advertisement that Maruti Car/Van Scheme Special Draw conducted by respondent Group will be held in Hotel Bhaskar Palace on 21.8.1994 at 6.00 p.m. by the famous cine heroine Miss Madhuri Dixit; that the membership is limited and the booking is done day in and day out and the last date for joining the scheme was 19 August, 1994. It was also mentioned that to be an owner of the Maruti Car through their grand draw scheme/which consists of 120 members, one has to pay Rs. 6,000 monthly, and the scheme consists of 30 months and in each draw, the lucky winner will be awarded by one vehicle. 

4. The notice was sent to the respondent for hearing on 16 July, 1997. Neither the respondent nor its representative appeared on that date, and the case was fixed for hearing on 10.11.1997 for framing of issues. On 10 November, 1997, also the respondent did not appear and the DG was directed to effect the service of notice and the case was adjourned to 24.2.1998, 25.5.1998 and 24.8.1998 for the same purpose. On 24 August, 1998, the DG had stated that the notice of enquiry was sent through Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh; but the respondent refused to accept the notice. The matter was then adjourned to 28 October, 1998, with direction that if on the next date of hearing, the respondent or its advocate does not appear, the proceedings are liable to be ex parte against it. On 28 October, 1998, too nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and the proceedings were set ex parts against the respondent. The DG was also directed to file evidence in the form of affidavit along with supporting documents and the case was fixed for final arguments on 21.12.1998. Accordingly, the DG filed the affidavit of Shri V. N. Sharma, Assistant Director General, in evidence on 23.12.1998 and taken the same stand as stated in the notice of enquiry heard on 14 July, 1999, and order reserved. 

5. We have heard the arguments of the DG. We have also gone through the evidence and the record of the case. It is revealed from the record that the respondent did not hold the draw which was proposed to be held on 21.8.1994. DG has also not highlighted any evidence which may prove loss or injury to the consumers as a result of the said scheme. 

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of HMM Ltd. v. DC reported as (1998) 3 Comp LJ 394 (SC) : (1998) CTJ 249 (SC) held that : 

"There is no material that indicates that there was a draw of lots or that a price was charged for participation in the draw. The fact that some bottles of Horlicks contained a slip of paper which entitled the buyer to a price is not a lottery in the ordinary sense of the word." 

7. The above order of the Supreme Court of India is binding on this Commission. It is also fortified by the Commission's order in the matter of Lyrixs in UTPE No. 248/96 and held that the respondent has not indulged in any unfair trade practices. We are, therefore, of the view that the action of the respondent in launching the scheme would not fall within the meaning of section 36A(3)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the charge relating to this in the NoE is to be dropped. 

8. In the premises we have come to the conclusion that the respondent has not indulged in the unfair trade practices as alleged in the notice of enquiry. We, therefore, order that the NoE issued against the respondent deserves to be and is hereby discharged with no order as to costs. 

9. Pronounced in the open court on this 21 day of September, 1999.