The complainant, namely, Hari Darshan Sevashram Private Ltd. which is a company registered under the Companies Act ,1956 booked a car with the Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was running a showroom for sale of Porsche cars in India at New Delhi under the name and style of Porsche Centre, New Delhi. The complainant made an initial payment of Rs.10 lakhs to Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. followed by further payment of Rs.61376600/- after taking a loan of Rs.6575000/- from Dhanlaxmi Bank New Delhi. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.1086340/- to Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 21.09.2011. Thus three payments were made to Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd., the first being payment of Rs.10 lakhs followed by second payment of Rs.61376600/- and the third payment of Rs.1086340/-. However, neither the vehicle was delivered to the complainant nor the amount paid by it was refunded. The complainant, therefore,  approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint impleading Porsche Automobile Holding SE, manufacturer of the vehicle, Porsche Middle East & Africa which was exporting Porsche vehicles, Precision Cars India Pvt. Ltd. which was importing Porsche vehicles in India from Porsche Middle East & Africa, Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Porsche Centre, New Delhi as the opposite parties in this complaint. The complaints were resisted by the entities against whom it was instituted. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 12.3.2013  directed all the opposite parties in the consumer complaints to pay Rs.1445529/- to the complainant and also awarded compensation quantified at Rs.15 lakhs to the complainant company. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the Porsche Automobile Holding SE and Porsche Middle East & Africa are before this Commission by way of FA/378/2013 whereas Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd., Precision Cars India Pvt. Ltd. and Porsche Centre, New Delhi have approached this Commission by way of FA/385/2013.

2.      No one has been appearing for the parties other than the appellants in FA/378/2013 and the complainant. In particular, no one has appeared for the appellants in FA/385/2013 despite Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Porsche Centre having  been served by publication in newspapers. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel appearing for  the  appellants in FA/378/2013 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

3.      As far as the appellants in FA/378/2013  is concerned, neither the vehicle was booked with them nor was the complainant  their consumer. The vehicle was booked  and payment was made by the complainant directly with Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd., which was running a showroom in New Delhi for sale of Porsche cars in India. There is no evidence of the payment having been received by  Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. as the agent of the appellants in FA/378/2013.  The complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid by it as well as the interest on that amount only from Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd, owner of the Porsche Centre, New Delhi. There was absolutely no privity of contract between the appellants in FA/378/2013 and the complainant Hari Darshan Sevashram Private Ltd. There was no privity of contract even between the complainant and Precision Cars India Pvt. Ltd. or Porsche Centre, Mumbai.

4.      It is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that they have already received the entire principal amount from Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd. As far as interest on the amount paid by the complainant including the bank interest  is concerned  that also has to be paid only by Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd., the said company having retained and used the money paid by the complainant partly from its own fund and partly be taking a loan from Dhanlaxmi Bank.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals and the consumer complaints are disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

1. Shreyans Motors Pvt. Ltd, shall pay the amount of Rs.1445529/- awarded by the State Commission to the complainant.

2. If the said amount is not paid within six weeks from today, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. six weeks from the date of this order till the date of payment.

3. Since the complainant is a company, no compensation would be payable to it for the alleged mental agony of the complainant.

6.      FA/378/2013  stands allowed,  whereas FA/385/2013 stands disposed of in terms of this order. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellants in FA/378/2013 including the statutory deposit shall be released to it alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.