M
B Shah, President - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgement and order dated 25.09.2000, passed by
the State Consumer Disputes Commission, U T Chandigarh in
Appeal No. 55/2000, Petitioner, M/s FIAT India Ltd has preferred
this Revision Petition. The Complainant, D S Cheema, filed
Complaint Case No. 67/1998 before Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, U T Chandigarh, contending that he had booked FIAT
Uno Car with Premier Automobiles (Opponent No.1) through
Amardeep Motors Ltd (Opponent No.2) and had paid Rs. 21,000/-
as the booking amount. He had also paid a further amount
of Rs. 3,22,165/- to the dealer, Amardeep Motors Ltd. It
was contended that despite making full payment, the car
was not delivered. Hence, the complaint was filed and the
District Forum by its judgement and order dated 01.12.1998
allowed the same and directed the dealer, as well as, the
manufacturer to refund the amount with 18% interest from
the date of deposit and also awarded refund of Rs. 15,000/-
paid towards registration charges, as well as, Rs. 25,000/-
as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
Against that order, the manufacturer preferred the appeal
as stated above. That appeal was dismissed by the State
Commission by observing that the appeal of the dealer was
dismissed and that inter se dispute between the dealer and
the manufacture was not required to be dealt with in the
appeal.
At the time of the hearing of this revision application,
Learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to the judgment
rendered by this Commission in R P No. 1018 of 2002 decided
on 06.01.2005 dealing with similar contention and with regard
to the same dealer and the Petitioner. In that petition
also, the contention of the Petitioner that the manufacturer
was not liable to pay the amount because the dealer has
not paid the same to the manufacturer, was dealt with and
negated by holding that the dispute between the manufacturer
and the dealer was not required to be decided or dealt with
in such cases as the dealer is the agent of the manufacturer.
In this case also, Amardeep Motors Ltd were the agents of
the Petitioner.
In our view, once the Petitioner has appointed Amardeep
Motors Ltd as its dealer, it does lie in the mouth of the
Petitioner to state that the Petitioner is not liable to
refund the amount recovered by its dealer. Amardeep Motors
Ltd may be its agent or the relationship between the Petitioner
and Amardeep Motors may be that of the principal to principal
basis but to the public at large he represents the manufacturer
as the agent/dealer of the company dealing with motor vehicles.
In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the
aforesaid contention.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that
award of interest @ 18 % is on higher side and in R P No.
1018 of 2002, this Commission has reduced the same to 12%.
As against this, Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted
that in the present case, facts are totally different. Complainant
was required to borrow the amount from the Deptt of Public
Health, Govt of Punjab, where he was serving and was required
to pay interest 12% + penal interest 6%.
Considering the facts, the order of the District Forum awarding
the interest @ 18% is modified and the Petitioner is directed
to pay the amount as directed by the District Forum with
interest @ 12% per annum. Revision Petition is partly allowed
accordingly. Petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the
Complainant. |
