Maruti Udyog Ltd., who was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Complainant/respondent No.1 had booked a Maruti car with M/s.Ganga Automobiles Ltd. - Respondent No.2, who was the dealer of the petitioner.  She paid a sum of Rs.1,76,542/- by a Demand Draft payable to the petitioner.  The Demand Draft was handed over to Respondent No.2, who in turn sent the same to the petitioner.  The Demand Draft was duly encashed.  Car was not delivered.  After some time, complainant was paid a sum of Rs.4,766/- by Respondent No.2 by way of interest.  On a query raised by the complainant, Respondent No.2 gave a cheque to the complainant in the sum of Rs.1,76,542/-, which was dishonoured.  Later on, Respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.48,000/- by two Demand Drafts drawn in favour of the complainant, which were duly encashed.  As the balance amount was not paid, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence on the record, directed the petitioner to refund the amount received by it towards the price of the vehicle booked by the complainant through M/s.Ganga Automobiles Ltd. – Respondent No.2, the dealer of the petitioner. 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.40,866/-, being the balance of the sum of Rs.1,76,542/- which remained unpaid, Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  The amount was reduced by the State Commission as the complainant had already received payment of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.48,000/- by way of two Demand Drafts sent by Respondent No.2.

          Admittedly, the complainant got the Demand Draft prepared in the name of the petitioner.  Said Demand Draft was handed-over to the dealer – Respondent No.2, who in turn sent to the petitioner.  The Demand Draft was deposited in the account of the petitioner.  Recipient of the money was the petitioner and it was its duty to pay back the amount in case the car was not delivered.  State Commission has rightly held the petitioner as well as the dealer – Respondent No.2 jointly and severally to pay the unpaid amount as well as compensation for the deficiency in service to the complainant.  Dismissed.