JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the second opposite party in CC No. 24/06 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellant along with the first opposite party is under orders to refund Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant with interest at 18% and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and also costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

          2.          It is the case of the complainant that on 25-10-1995 he booked Pengcot 309 car through the second opposite party, the authorized dealer of the first opposite party.  He paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance infavour of the first opposite party.  It was promised that the car will be delivered within 6 months from the date of booking.  The car was not delivered even after the expiry of the above period.  The complainant cancelled the order on 08-07-1997.  But the advance amount paid has not been returned so far.

3.          The first opposite party stood exparte.

          4.          The second opposite party has contended that he has no liability and that as per the terms and conditions it is the first opposite party who is to return the amount.

          5.          The evidence adduced consisted of Exts. A1 to A5.

          6.          The Forum has held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party also as it was through the second opposite party, the authorized dealer of the first opposite party that the amount was paid and booking made as well as cancelled.  It was on account of the inordinate delay in getting the vehicle that the booking was cancelled.

          7.          We find that the contention of the Counsel for the appellant that the second opposite party has no liability at all cannot be countenanced as it is also based on the standing and reputation of the second opposite party that the complainant has made the booking through the second opposite party.  It was through the second opposite party that the amount was paid.  In the circumstances, we find that the responsibility cannot be avoided totally by the second opposite party appellant.  We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party also.

          8.          All the same, we find that interest at 18% and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- cumulatively is not called for.  Hence the order to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is set aside.  The rest of the order of the Forum below is sustained.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above.

                                       JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

Sr.