This revision petition has been filed with an application to condone the delay of 143 days.  It has been stated in the application that the petitioner came to know about passing of the order by the District Forum on receipt of notice from District Forum, Ghaziabad in Execution Application filed by Vipin Kumar, respondent No.2; that

-2-

 prior to receipt of notice from the District Forum, the petitioner had no knowledge about passing of the order against it.

          For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 143 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          With the consent of counsel for the parties, this revision petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

          Present revision petition has been filed against the order passed in Appeal No.1872/SC/2006 in complaint No.227/1999.  At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes to proceed against respondent No. 1, Vipin Kumar only.

          Respondent/complainant had booked a Paul Peugeot car by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance amount.  Thereafter, he cancelled the booking.  The cheque was drawn in the name of             M/s Paul Peugeot Limited, the manufacturer.   Petitioner has impleaded the respondent Vipin Kumar as well as M/s Paul Peugeot Limited, the manufacturer of the car as party respondent.  Opposite party did not refund the amount, aggrieved against which the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

-3-

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer as well as M/s Paul Peugeot Limited to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 10% along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum,             M/s Vivek Automobile Limited, the dealer filed an appeal, along with some other appeals with which we are not concerned at this stage, stating therein that he had no liability to pay the amount as he was only a dealer and the cheque was drawn in favour of the manufacturer.  The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the dealer Insofaras the liability of dealer was concerned.  Order against M/s Paul Peugeot Limited was maintained and while doing so, it added the name of M/s Premier Automobiles Limited, petitioner herein.  It seems, the name of M/s Premier Automobiles Limited was added by the State Commission under the impression that the petitioner was a successor in interest of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited.

-4-

          On merits, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was never made a party respondent before the District Forum or the State Commission and the State Commission has erred in making the petitioner liable to pay the amount. 

          Notice was issued to the respondent.  Respondent No.1 and 2 have put in appearance through Sh. Arvind Garg, Advocate.  Respondent No.3-5 are not present despite notice.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

          It is not disputed before us that the petitioner was not made a party respondent before the District Forum or the State Commission.  The State Commission, while disposing of the appeal fixed the liability on the petitioner along with M/s Pal Peugeot Limited by observing thus:

         “In the result, all these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.  The impugned judgments as against the dealer appellants are set aside with a clarification that the manufactuers namely M/s Pal Peugeot Limited and Premier Automobiles Limited shall be liable to refund the booking amount of the respective complainants.

-5-

          Respondent did not make an application to implead the petitioner.  No finding has been recorded by the State Commission that the petitioner is the successor in interest of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited or that it had taken over the liability of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited.  Since the petitioner was not made a party respondent before the District Forum or the State Commission, the State Commission has erred in making the petitioner liable to pay the amount.   This revision petition is accepted.  Impugned order of the State Commission insofaras it makes the petitioner liable to pay the amount, is set aside. 

We are not making any observation regarding liability of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited.