KHERA AUTOMOBILES, DELHI vs KERALA AUTOMOBILES

THIS order will dispose of A-51/93 and A-52/93 which contain common questions of law and fact. The facts in the order are being given from A-51/93.

THE complainant Shri Rohtish Kumar, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as advance for three wheeler Scooter with opposite party No. 2-appellant, on 7th April, 1993 who is dealer of respondent No. 1 M/s. Kerala Automobiles. THE complainant afterwards cancelled the booking vide registered letter dated 4th Feb., 1991 and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount. However, they failed to do so. Consequently, the complainant filed the complaint. The complaint was contested by both the respondents. They were jointly and severally held liable by the District Forum to refund the amount with interest, to the complainant. Opposite Party No. 2 has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was an agent of M/s. Kerala Automobiles and that they collected the amount from the complainant on their behalf. Consequently, they are not personally liable to pay the amount to the complainant. We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept the same. The amount was deposited by the complainant with the appellant and there is nothing on the record to show, that they sent that amount to respondent No. l opposite party No.1. Consequently, they are equally liable to refund the amount to him. Consequenly, we reject the submission of the learned Counsel.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has next argued that in case recovery of the decretal amount is made by the complainant from the appellant, they are entitled to recover the amount from M/s. Kerala Automobiles. We have duly considered the argument. It has not been shown to us that this amount has been paid by the appellant to M/s. Kerala Automobiles. In case the amount has been paid by them to M/s. Kerala Automobiles they may institute a suit for recovery of the same, if so advised and that Court will decide the matter after recording the evidence of the parties. The facts of the other appeal are similar and no further argument has been raised therein.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in both the appeals and dismiss the same. As the respondent is not represented by any Counsel. Therefore, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.