State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sohal Motors, Swaraj Mazda Agency vs Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak ... on 23 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.34 of 2010
Date of institution : 12.5.2010
Date of decision : 23.9.2010
M/s Sohal Motors, Swaraj Mazda Agency, G.T. Road, Bye-Pass Post Office Four
Fields, New Delhi through its partner S. Amarjit Singh Sohal.
.......Petitioner
Versus
1. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (Dharam Parchar
Committee), Sri Darbar Sahib Complex, Amritsar through its General
Attorney S. Harinder Singh.
2. M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited, 204-205, Sector 34-A, Post Box No.920,
Chandigarh-160022 through its President (Marketing), Shri K.B. Parshad.
......Respondents
Revision Petition against the order dated
19.4.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the petitioner : Shri Subodh K. Vyas, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Shri K.P. Singh, Advocate for Dr. P.K. Sekhon, Advocate.
For respondent No.2 : Shri Puneet Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar (now respondent No.1) had filed a complaint against the petitioners in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"). M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited was also impleaded as respondent No.2 in the complaint as they were the manufacturers of Swaraj Mazda.Revision Petition No.34 of 2010. 2
2. The facts of the case were that respondent No.1 had invited quotations for purchasing three chassis of Swaraj Mazda by passing a resolution dated 30.6.2005. These were to be purchased for the propaganda of Sikh religion and the matters connected therewith. The petitioners had submitted the quotations. The quotations of the petitioners were accepted and an amount of Rs.14,43,726/- which was full and final amount for the purchase of three chassis of Swaraj Mazda was paid to the petitioners by respondent No.1 through cheque dated 18.11.2006. The cheque was received by the petitioners and the receipt dated 23.11.2006 was issued by the petitioners in favour of Secretary, Dharam Parchar Committee (SGPC) respondent No.1.
3. It was further pleaded that the petitioners failed to supply the above mentioned chassis to respondent No.1 in spite of repeated requests. Legal notice dated 12.8.2007 was served on the petitioners. The petitioners were requested either to deliver the aforesaid three chassis to respondent No.1 or in the alternative to return the amount of Rs.14,43,726/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 18.11.2006.
4. This notice was replied by the petitioners through its Manager on 18.12.2007. It was admitted that the petitioners had received the amount towards the total value of three chassis and that the petitioners had issued the receipt to respondent No.1. It was pleaded that the order was placed with respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 had failed to supply three chassis of Swaraj Mazda. Therefore the petitioners could not supply three chassis.
5. Thereafter the complaint was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 for the supply of three chassis of Swaraj Mazda and in the alternative for the refund of the amount of Rs.14,43,726/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
6. The petitioners had filed an application for return of the complaint to respondent No.1 on the plea that respondent No.1 was not a consumer, the Revision Petition No.34 of 2010. 3 complaint was barred by limitation and litigation was going on between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
7. Respondent No.2 also filed the application for dismissal of the complaint pleading that respondent No.1 was not the consumer qua respondent No.2 as the dispute was between the petitioners and respondent No.1.
8. Learned District Forum vide order dated 19.4.2010 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.
9. However vide separate order dated 19.4.2010 application filed by respondent No.2 was accepted and it was held that respondent No.2 was not a necessary party and its name was ordered to be struck off from the array of respondents.
10. Hence this petition.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the present petition be accepted and both the orders dated 19.4.2010 passed by the District Forum be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Prem Nath Motors Ltd. v. Anurag Mittal" 2009(1) Consumer Protection Cases 57 (SC).
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was that there was no merit in the present revision petition and the same be dismissed.
13. Similarly the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was that there was no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
15. The admitted facts are that respondent No.1 had invited quotations for the purchase of three chassis of Swaraj Mazda. The petitioners had also submitted the quotations among others. The quotation submitted by the petitioners was accepted by respondent No.1. Thereafter the amount of Rs.14,43,726/- was remitted by respondent No.1 vide cheque dated 18.11.2006 in favour of the Revision Petition No.34 of 2010. 4 petitioners. This amount was received by the petitioners and the receipt dated 23.11.2006 was issued by the petitioners in favour of the Secretary, Dharam Parchar Committee, Amritsar for an amount of Rs.14,43,726/-.
16. Since the petitioners had issued the receipt in favour of the Secretary, Dharam Parchar Committee (S.G.P.C.), Amritsar, therefore, now the petitioners cannot turn around and allege that the vehicles were being purchased by respondent No.1 for commercial purpose and therefore, respondent No.1 was not a consumer qua the petitioners.
17. However this point would be open for being taken up by the petitioners in the written reply and the petitioners would be at liberty to make submissions on that account. But prima facie for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition it is observed that respondent No.1 was a consumer qua the petitioners.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleges that the petitioners were appointed authorized sales service, spare parts dealer of the vehicles manufactured by respondent No.2. The petitioners had remitted an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- to respondent No.2 vide cheque dated 29.11.2006. Respondent No.2 has failed to supply three chassis of Swaraj Mazda and in the alternative failed to return that amount to the petitioners. Therefore respondent No.2 was a necessary party and the petitioners were operating as the agents of respondent No.2.
19. However respondent No.2 has taken the plea that respondent No.2 had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,33,33,650/- against the petitioners and the amount remitted by the petitioners to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- was adjusted against the amount recoverable by respondent No.2 from the petitioners and that respondent No.2 was not liable either to supply the three chassis of Swaraj Mazda or to refund that amount to the petitioners.
20. Whatever may be the relationship of the petitioners and respondent No.2, inter-se, the fact remains that respondent No.1 had placed order with the Revision Petition No.34 of 2010. 5 petitioners for the purchase of three chassis of Swaraj Mazda and had remitted an amount of Rs.14,43,726/- vide cheque dated 18.11.2006 which was encashed by the petitioners and for which the petitioners had issued the receipt dated 23.11.2006 to respondent No.1. Therefore either the petitioners are to supply the three chassis of Swaraj Mazda to respondent No.1 or to refund the amount of Rs.14,43,726/- received by the petitioners from respondent No.1 with interest. Therefore respondent No.1 was a consumer qua the petitioners and the petitioners were answerable to respondent No.1.
21. No doubt normally the respondents are not deleted from the list of respondents on the interim application filed by the respondents but since the learned District Forum in its wisdom has reached the conclusion that respondent No.1 was not a consumer qua respondent No.2, therefore the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the learned District Forum holding respondent No.2 as an unnecessary party cannot be interfered with. Therefore the same is upheld.
22. However since respondent No.1 was a consumer qua the petitioners and since the order of the purchase of chassis was placed with the petitioners for religious purposes, therefore, respondent No.1 was a consumer qua the petitioners and the application filed by the petitioners had been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum.
23. So far as Anurag Mittal's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the facts of that case were different. In that case, the complainant had given the cheque to the dealer but it was in favour of the manufacturers. However in the present case, the payment was made by respondent No.1 to the petitioners and not to the manufacturers.
24. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had remitted the amount to the manufacturers and therefore respondent No.2 manufacturers were liable. However the remission of the amount by the petitioners to respondent No.2 is a transaction inter se between Revision Petition No.34 of 2010. 6 them to which respondent No.1 was not a party. Since respondent No.1 had made the payment to the petitioners, therefore, they were liable to respondent No.1.
25. In view of the discussion held above, we find that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
26. The arguments in this case were heard on 13.9.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 23 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER