KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.668/02 JUDGMENT DATED.6.12.2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Usha Ashok, ‘Karma’, CARP 10, Pushpavanam Road, -- APPELLANT Poojappura Road, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram-695 012. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. 1. M/s.PAL-PEUGEOT Ltd., Kalyan Shill Road, Mampada, Dombivil – 421 204 Thana (District) Maharashtra, -- RESPONDENTS Rep. by its Vice President(Marketing) 2. The Asst.Sales Manager (vehicles), T.V.sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram-40. 3. The Sales Officer, T.V.sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., P.B.No.1891, National High way, Kaloor, Cochin-17. (Respondents 2 & 3 by Adv.S.Laila) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.24.10.2000 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.No.344/2000. The complaint in OP.344/2000 was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 to 3 claiming return of the advance amount of Rs.25000/- with interest from the date of booking till the date of realization and also for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service. 2. The 1st opposite party the manufacturer of the Pal Peugeot car remained absent and so the first opposite party was declared ex-parte. The opposite parties 2 and 3 admitted the transaction but disputed from liability to return the advance amount because there was no privity of contract between the dealers (opposite parties 2 and 3) and the complainant. The lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a greater extent and also the case of the opposite parties 2 and 3, the dealers of the aforesaid Pal Peugeot Car. Thereby the impugned order was passed directing the first opposite party, the manufacturer to pay the advance amount of Rs.25000/- with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. from 1.5.98 till the date of realization with a cost of Rs.500/-. The opposite parties 2 and 3 were absolved from the liability. The complainant is not fully satisfied with the order passed by the lower forum. Hence, the present appeal by the complainant therein. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the first respondent/first opposite party, the manufacturer of the Pal Peugeot Car. The counsel for the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 2 and 3) were present and we heard them. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant relied on Ext.P1 agreement dated.31.10.95 entered into between the complainant and first respondent (manufacturer) and submitted that the appellant/complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the last date of booking of the aforesaid Pal Peugeot Car. The appellant has also requested for making the respondents 2 and 3 also liable. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 relied on the decision rendered by this State Commission in the case of T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Vs.T.P.Abdul Jabbar & Anr. reported in IV (2006) CPJ 124 and canvassed for the position that only the manufacturer is liable to refund the advance amount which was received by the manufacturer at the time of booking of the car. It is further submitted that there was no privity of contract between the respondents 2 and 3 on the one hand and the appellant/complainant on the other hand. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellant/complainant is entitled to get interest on the advance amount of Rs.25000/- from the last date of booking of the Car till the date of realization? 2. Whether the respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 2 and 3) can be made liable for the amount due to the appellant/complainant? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP.344/2000? 5. POINTS 1 TO 3 There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant booked a Pal-Peugeot car with the first respondent/manufacturer and the said booking was effected through the respondents 2 and 3 as the dealers of the said Car. It is also an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.25000/- was paid to the fist respondent manufacturer by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of the first respondent. The lower forum rightly ordered refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs.25000/-. But unfortunately, the lower forum omitted to note the stipulation in clause 12 (b) to of P1 agreement to the effect that in case of cancellation of the booking of the Car the applicant is entitled to get back booking amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. So by-virtue of the aforesaid provision contained in P1 agreement the appellant/complainant is entitled to get interest on the said amount of Rs.25000/- at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of booking ie.31.10.95 till the date of cancellation. Admittedly the date of cancellation on the booking of the car was made on 20.1.98. So, the first opposite party manufacturer is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said sum of Rs.25000/- from 31.10.95 till 20.1.98. The impugned order passed by the lower forum is modified by adding the aforesaid finding regarding payment of interest. 6. The other case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondents 2 and 3/dealers are also liable for the amount due to the complainant. Admittedly, the booking amount of Rs.25000/- was paid by the appellant/complainant to the first respondent/manufacturer by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the manufacturer. More over, there is nothing on record to infer that there was any privity of contract between the appellant/complainant and the dealers namely; respondents 2 and 3. It is held by this State Commission that in such a situation the dealer cannot be made liable (IV (2006) CPJ 124). So, the aforesaid case of the appellant/ complainant cannot be accepted. The lower forum has rightly absolved the respondents 2 and 3/dealers from the liability to pay the sum of Rs.25000/- to the complainant. We do not find any other ground to make any other modification to the impugned order passed by the lower forum. In all other respects, the impugned order is confirmed. These points are answered according. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Thereby the first opposite party/first respondent (manufacturer) is directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the appellant/complainant with 16% interest from 1.5.98 till the date of realization with a cost of Rs.500/-. The first opposite party/first respondent is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said sum of Rs.25000/- from 31.10.95 till 20.1.98. There will be no order as to cost as far as the present appeal is concerned. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER S/L | 
