Delhi District Court
Maruti True Value vs Sanjay Gupta on 1 September, 2011
In the court of Ms. Ina Malhotra, Additional District JudgeI
New Delhi District :Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
RCA No. 6/11
Maruti True Value
M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
F14, Competent House
Connaught Place, New Delhi ...Appellant
V E R S U S
Sanjay Gupta
C28, Golf View Apptts.
DDA, MIG Flats, Saket,New Delhi ....Respondent
Plaint presented On: 20.04.2011
Arguments concluded On: 25.08.2011
Judgment On: 01.09.2011
J U D G M E N T
This Appeal impugns the Judgment and decree of the Ld. Trial Court whereby the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs.40,000/ has been decreed against them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant deals in the sale and purchase of second hand Maruti cars which are purchased from intending sellers.
RCA 6/11 ....1
3. The respondent desired to sell his Maruti car No.DL3CR7818 to the Appellant. He was entertained by an employee/agent of the appellant/defendant,viz, Shri Varun Pathak. The price of the vehicle was assessed by the said employee/agent as Rs.1,25,000/. Against the said transaction, the respondent/plaintiff was paid Rs.85,000/ in cash along with a cheque of Rs.40,000/.This cheque No.937632 dated 5.08.2008 drawn on State Bank of India was dishonoured and was the subject matter of the suit before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. The Appellant/defendant had resisted the suit on the ground that they were not liable to make any payment under the cheque as it was not issued by the company. It was also stated that the said Varun Pathak had acted in his individual capacity and as the purpose for issuance of the cheque could not be ascertained, no liability could be fastened on them.
5. Keeping in view the evidence on record and the facts of the case, the Ld. Trial Court proceeded decree the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of the amount under the dishonoured cheque together with interest.
6. The Appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the fact that RCA 6/11 ....2 despite making a prayer that the said Varun Pathak be impleaded in the suit, the same was not allowed. According to them, impleading Shri Varun Pathak was necessary for a proper and an effective adjudication of the case.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsels in this case and perused the record of the Ld. Trial Court. It is not disputed that Varun Pathak was purportedly acting for and on behalf of the Appellant/defendant. This fact has been admitted by the Appellant/defendant while filing an FIR against the said person. They have admitted that they had appointed Varun Pathak as their agent and his work profile was in the nature of receiving and collecting second hand cars for them. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has also pointed out that this was not the first transaction made by him with Appellant/defendant company through the said Varun Pathak. An earlier car belonging to his wife had also been sold to the Appellant/defendant through Varun Pathak, receipt of which is on record.
8. As the Appellant had led people to understand that the said Varun Pathak was their agent and was authorised to deal on their behalf, there was no reason to doubt his credentials. The RCA 6/11 ....3 respondent had transacted with the Appellant through Varun Pathak on an earlier occasion also. A delivery receipt mentioning the sale consideration was issued on the appellant's letter head in respect of the sale of the respondent's car which appeared cogent and a reliable document, even though the signature of the said Varun Pathak was not supported by the seal of the appellant company. The sale of the vehicle by the respondent to the appellant through their agent makes the principal liable for the payment.
9. Arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that Varun Pathak ought to have been impleaded in the suit is of no consequence as he was merely an agent/employee. His cheating the respondent does not absolve the appellant of their liability as he was engaged by the appellant for purchasing cars for and on their behalf after assessing their valuation. The purpose of issuing the cheque is clearly mentioned on the Delivery Receipt issued on the letter Head of the appellant. Impleading the said Varun Pathak was therefore neither necessary nor proper for the effective adjudication of the suit. Such an objection has been taken by the appellant to confound the issue and their case is at RCA 6/11 ....4 best of being cheated by their own employee.
10. I find no infirmity with the impugned Judgment and decree of the Ld. Trial Court. The appeal is Dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared.
11. A copy of the Judgment and decree sheet along with the Trial Court record be sent back.
Announced
(Ina Malhotra)
Addl. District JudgeI
PHC:New Delhi 01.09.2011
RCA 6/11 ....5
RCA No. 6/11
Present : Counsel for the plaintiffs
Vide separate Judgment, appeal is dismissed. Decree in dismissal of Appeal be prepared.
A copy of the Judgment and decree alongwith TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Ina Malhotra)
Addl. District JudgeI
PHC:New Delhi 01.09.2011
RCA 6/11 ....6