M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.2085/ 2016.
1. Shri Akash Malik,
Director,
C.I. HYUNDAI,
Through 189, Jinsi,
Maida Mill Road,
Jehangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.).
2. C.I. HYUNDAI,
Through The Manager,
189, Jinsi,
Maida Mill Road,
Jehangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.). …. APPELLANTS.
Versus
1. Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma,
s/o Shri Shyamlalji Sharma,
R/o Ward No.10,
Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (MP)
2. Shri Rajendra Raghuwanshi,
s/o Shri Man Singh Raghuwanshi,
R/o House of Anil Marjedkar,
Vijay Nagar Colony,
Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (MP). ….RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.
SHRI VARUN SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1.
NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
O R D E R
(Passed on 11/05 / 2023)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J :
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.46/2015.
2. The facts as are crystallized and are emerging after passing of the impugned order are in nut shell as under :
The appellants are the dealers of Hyundai Cars. The second respondent is their authorized Sales Consultant. According to the complainant he had visited the show room of the appellants and contacted second respondent – Sales Consultant for purchase of Hyundai Car and as per the discussions the price of the car was fixed at Rs.3,40,000/- which included premium amount for insurance, registration of the vehicle and other taxes. On 4.8.2014 the complainant had made part payment of Rs.2,40,000/- in cash to the second respondent towards the price of the Hyundai car. After the said payment was made by the first respondent / complainant to the second respondent the car was delivered to the complainant on 4.8.2014. On 5.10.2014 balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in cash by the complainant to second respondent. Inspite of receiving entire price of the car through the second respondent the
appellants again demanded Rs.1,06,114/- from the complainant stating that the amount which was paid by the complainant to their agent the second respondent was not paid by the second respondent to them. Alleging non-receipt of the full price of the car the appellants refused to handover papers necessary for registration of the car to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant had filed a complaint case seeking directions against the appellants to provide invoice, sale letter, insurance policy, registration of the vehicle and the receipts showing deposit of taxes with regard to the car. He also claimed compensation on account of mental agony to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The appellants resisted the claim and stated that the complainant had visited the showroom to purchase the Hyundai car and agreed to pay Rs.3,46,114/- towards the price of the car. The appellants have accepted in their reply of receiving the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards price of the car, but denied of receiving balance amount of Rs.1,06,114/- from the complainant. They stated that their Sales Consultant – respondent no.2 did not pay the full amount towards price of the car received by him from the complainant. It is stated that an FIR was lodged against the second respondent and offence has been registered against their Sales Consultant / second respondent under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC. It is stated that since the second respondent even after receiving the price of the car did not remit the amount to the appellants, the appellants were justified in withholding the papers relating to the insurance and registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.
- 4 -
4. After considering the pleadings and the evidence, the District Commission vide impugned order partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to provide invoice, sale letter, insurance policy, registration of the vehicle and the receipts showing deposit of taxes with regard to the car within 30 days and to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost within the said period failing which the amount shall carry interest @8% p.a.
5. The facts as are emerging from the FIR lodged by the appellants against their agent as also from the impugned order are that the second respondent was authorized Sales Consultant of the appellants. He had received the entire price of the subject car from the complainant. According to the appellants, though the second respondent had received the price of the subject car but he did not deposit the same with them and for this misappropriation and cheating an FIR is lodged and the matter is pending for decision before the competent Criminal Court.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, undisputedly, the price amount of the subject car was received by the second respondent, who was agent of the appellants. If he did not remit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- collected by him on 5.10.2014 from the complainant towards price of the subject vehicle, the appellants cannot claim the said amount again from the complainant. The appellants are laible for the acts of their agent. The relationship between them is
- 5 -
of master and servant. It has now been well settled that the master is vicariously liable for the wrong committed by his agent. See, the judgements passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in G. Krishna Kumar & Anr. Versus Har Auto Pvt. Ltd. U Ors., III (2016) CPJ 521 (NC), Punjab National Bank Versus Daljeet Singh, passed in RevisionPetition No.753 of 2018 decided on 19.1.2021 and Haryana Gramin Bank & Anr. Versus Jaswinder & Anr, passed in Revision Petition No.2453 of 2010 decided on 7.9.2010.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix in our considered view the appellants have committed deficiency in service firstly by raising demand of balance amount of Rs.1,06,114/- towards price money of the subject car though the same was already paid by the complainant to the second respondent. Secondly, by not handing over papers like insurance policy, registration of the car and receipts showing deposit of taxes to the complainant. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Commission in regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants needs no interference as for the alleged act of embezzlement done by the second respondent, who is authorized Sales Consultant / Agent of the appellants, the appellants cannot be allowed to escape from their liability.
8. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke
