R.K. Bawri, Member - The Petitioner in this Misc Petition was the Appellant in Appeal No.3(M) 1998 filed before this Commission which was disposed by us vide order dated 9-2-2002.

 

2.         The brief facts of the case in the appeal were that Smt. Sannyta T.Lyngdoh, the Complainant/Appellant/Petitioner booked a Fiat Uno car with The Premier Automobiles Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Premier Automobiles') upon payment of a sum of Rs 21,000 as booking advance, receipt of which was duly acknowledged by Premier Automobiles on 10-8-96. Despite long drawn correspondence the Complainant failed to get delivery of the car and was left with no alternative but to file consumer complaint No.25(S)1997 before the District Forum, Shillong on 22-9-97.

 

3.         However, vide order dated 28-5-98 the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that it had no jurisdiction. On appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, this Commission vide its order dated 9-2-02 set aside the order passed by the District Forum and held that the complaint was maintainable. The complaint was also decided on its merits by this Commission itself and the following directions were issued-

 

‘In view of the above discussion, we direct the Respondent/Opp. Party No.1, The Premier Automobiles Ltd., to return to the Appellant/Complainant the sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand) collected by them from the Appellant as Booking Advance for Fiat Uno Car together with interest thereon calculated at 18p.c (Eighteen percent) p.a. from the date of receipt i.e. 10.8.96 till the date of repayment of the said sum and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the Appellant/Complainant as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the Appellant due to the negligence of the Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 and a further sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) as costs, within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order.’

 

4.         Now, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition for modification of the order dated 9-2-02 passed by this Commission, for inclusion of the name of M/S Fiat India Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as M/s Ind Auto Ltd. in place of the Premier Automobiles Ltd as

Respondent No. 1 and for a direction to Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. to pay the claim amount.

 

5.         According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the name of the Respondent No.1 had been inadvertently mentioned as the Premier Automobiles Ltd. instead of Ind Auto Ltd. (now known as Fiat India Pvt Ltd) in the order dated 9-2-02 passed by this Commission. The learned Counsel further submits that in reply to the request made by the Petitioner for payment, Premier Automobiles, Mumbai, addressed a letter dated 2.8.02 to the Secretary of this Commission stating that the entire liabilities with regard to the Booking Advances had been transferred to M/s Ind Auto Ltd with effect from 20th Sept., 1997 and hence M/s Fiat India Pvt Ltd. (formerly known as Ind Auto Ltd.) are liable to refund the Uno booking Money to the Petitioner. On the other hand, M/s. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. had replied that since this Commission's Order had not been directed to them they are not liable to pay the awarded amount to the Appellant/Petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the Petitioner has been deprived of the amount awarded to her due to non-inclusion of the name of the Ind Auto Ltd (now Fiat India Ltd) in the order dated 9-2-02 and hence the petition.

 

6.         Notices were issued both to Premier Automobiles and Fiat India Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Fiat'). Neither was any reply received from Premier Automobiles nor were they represented at the hearing. However, we find from the records that even before the instant petition was filed, upon receipt of a copy of the order dated 9.2.02 passed by this Commission, Premier Automobiles sent a letter dated 2-8-02 addressed to the Secretary of this Commission accompanied by an affidavit affirmed by its Vice President and Company Secretary in respect of Appeal No.3(M) 98, requesting this Commission to delete their name from the complaint and to dismiss the complaint. There was no action or judicial notice required to be taken by this Commission on this letter dated 2-8-02, inasmuch as the Consumer Complaint had already been disposed of by the District Forum as far back as on 28.5.98 and even the Appeal No.3 (M),98 arising therefrom had been disposed by this Commission on 9-2-02. We can only express our bewilderment at the filing of such a letter and affidavit and making of such a prayer by an officer of the rank of Vice President and Company Secretary despite knowing full well that the matter had already been finally disposed of by this Commission on 9-2-02. If Premier Automobiles was aggrieved by the order of this Commission it ought to have approached the National Commission.

 

7.         On the part of Fiat it has been contended before this Commission that it is not a fact that error was committed by this Commission by mentioning the name of Premier Automobiles instead of Ind. Auto Ltd. in the order dated 9.2.02. The direction to Premier Automobiles to pay the Advance booking Money with cost and compensation was correct as the Appellant's booking of Uno car remained with Premier Automobiles as per the Deed of Assignment dated 30th March 1998 signed between Premier Automobiles and Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. and the liabilities for those bookings which were cancelled prior to 29-9-97 remained with Premier Automobiles. They asserted that the State Commission correctly directed Premier Automobiles to return the Advance with costs and compensation.

8.         Having perused the records we find that there was no error on the part of this Commission by non-inclusion of the name of Ind Auto Ltd. as Respondent No. 1 in place of Premier Automobiles, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The booking advance was paid to and received by Premier Automobiles, the complaint was filed against Premier Automobiles and not Ind Auto Ltd. and so was the appeal. Of course, thereafter an amended memorandum of appeal was filed showing the Respondent No. 1 as ‘M/S Ind Auto Ltd formerly known as M/S Premier Automobiles Ltd’. However, there was nothing tendered on behalf of the Appellant to show that Premier Automobiles came to be subsequently known as Ind Auto Ltd as alleged and as such the order of this Commission was correctly directed to Premier Automobiles. Even in the amended Memo of Appeal there was nothing to show that Fiat/Ind Auto were liable in any manner whatsoever. It is also abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by Fiat that while it is true that Fiat was formerly known as Ind Auto Ltd., Premier Automobiles and Fiat are two distinctly separate entities which have even entered into a deed of assignment dated 30-3-98.

 

9.         In this view of the matter, the stand of the Petitioner that Premier Automobiles was formerly known as Ind Auto Ltd is totally misconceived and erroneous and her prayer to amend the order dated 9-2-02 passed by this Commission and substitute the name of Fiat instead of Premier Automobiles would be absolutely contrary to law and against all canons of justice.

 

10.       Moreover, there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Fiat and it is only on the presumed basis that Premier Automobiles was subsequently known as Ind Auto Ltd. (which again was later known as Fiat India (P) Ltd.) that the Petitioner has prayed for including the name of Fiat in place of Premier Automobiles. This basis is totally misconceived and erroneous, as already stated by us.

 

Lastly it needs to be stated here that, in any event, having disposed of the Appeal on 9.2.02 this Commission is functus officio' and it has no authority or jurisdiction to now direct Fiat India (P) Ltd. to pay the awarded amount to the Petitioner or for that matter to turn the clock back in any way and to pass any fresh directions in the disposed appeal.

 

The petition is thus devoid of merit and stands dismissed.