National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Fiat India Ltd. vs Amardeep Motors Ltd. And Anr. on 12 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ124(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.9.2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in Appeal No. 55/2000, petitioner, M/s. FIAT India Ltd. has preferred this revision petition.
2. The complainant, Shri D.S. Cheema, filed Complaint Case No. 67/1998 before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T., Chandigarh, contending that he had booked FIAT Uno Car with Premier Automobiles (opponent No. 1) through Amardeep Motors Ltd. (opponent No. 2) and had paid Rs. 21,000/- being the booking amount. He had also paid a further amount of Rs. 3,22,165/- to the dealer, Amardeep Motors Ltd. It was contended that despite making full payment, the car was not delivered. Hence, the complaint was filed and the District Forum by its judgment and order dated 1.12.1998 allowed the same and directed the dealer as well as the manufacturer to refund the amount with 18% interest from the date of deposit and also awarded refund of Rs. 15,000/- paid towards registration charges as well as Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
3. Against that order, the manufacturer preferred the appeal as staled above. That appeal was dismissed by the State Commission by observing that the appeal of the dealer was dismissed and that inter se dispute between the dealer and the manufacturer was not required to be dealt with in the appeal.
4. At the time of hearing of this revision application, learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the judgment rendered by this Commission in R.P. No. 1018 of 2002 decided on 6.1.2005 dealing with the similar contention and with regard to the same dealer and the petitioner. In that petition also, the contention of the petitioner that the manufacturer was not liable to pay the amount because the dealer has not paid the same to the manufacturer, was dealt with and negated by holding that the dispute between the manufacturer and the dealer was not required to be decided or dealt with in such cases as the dealer is the agent of the manufacturer. In this case also, Amardeep Motors Ltd. were the agents of the petitioner.
5. In our view, once the petitioner has appointed Amardeep Motors Ltd. as its dealer, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to state that the petitioner is not liable to refund the amount recovered by its dealer. Amardeep Motors Ltd. may be its agent or the relationship between the petitioner and Amaradeep Motors may be that of principal to principal basis but to the public at large he represents the manufacturer as the agent/dealer of the company dealing with motor vehicles. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that award of interest @ 18% is on higher side and in R.P. No. 1018 of 2002, this Commission has reduced the same to 12%. As against this, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case facts are totally different. Complainant was required to borrow the amount from the Deptt. of Public Health, Govt. of Punjab, where he was serving and was required to pay interest @ 12% + penal interest @ 6%.
7. Considering the facts, the order of the District Forum awarding the interest @ 18% is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay the amount as directed by the District Forum with interest @ 12% per annum. Revision petition is partly allowed accordingly. Petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.