9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct of the Opposite Parties is not required.The Commission further notes that the Informant has made some vague allegations of collusion against all the Opposite Parties but there is nothing on record to substantiate such allegations. In the light of the above facts and situation, the Commission finds that no, prima facie, case is made out against the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the case deserves to be closed down under Section 26(2) of the Act. - CASE NO. 13 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2014 - ANURAG GOEL, M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER AND AUGUSTINE PETER, JJ. R.N. Rai for the Appellant. ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002 1. Information in this case has been filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Thereafter, the car's engine stopped working on 19.3.2011 and it was sent for repairs to the authorised service centre of OP 3 and it was repaired for the cost of ₹ 6, 371/-. The car's engine again stopped working and it was again taken to OP 3 for repairing. Aggrieved by deficiency of the services of OP 3 and technical fault of the car, the Informant sent a legal notice on 08.06.2011 in the name of OP 1, OP 2 and OP 3. After several telephonic calls and meetings with the officials of OP 1 and OP 3, OP 3 finally agreed to repair the car engine with an assurance on behalf of OP 1 that the Engine Head of the car will be replaced and the cost would be borne on 50% shared basis. Accordingly, the car was repaired and the Info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50/- per day along with the charges of repairs/spare parts etc., from the date of OP 4's advice regarding completion of work till date of customer taking physical delivery of the car . Since the notice was sent even when the car was still not completely repaired and also as the matter was still pending before the Consumer Forum, the Informant alleged that it was done with the ulterior motive to put pressure on him. 8. The Informant further alleged that OP 4 refused to release the car until the charges were paid. The Informant submitted that the practice so adopted by OP 4 was an afterthought to threaten the Informant. The Informant contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties to refuse internal report, impose arbitrary charges, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
