PATWA ABHIKARAN vs NARAYAN

THIS is an appeal directed against the order dated 28.6.1993 passed in Case No. 465/92 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the ''District Forum''), whereby the complaint of the respondent No. 1 was allowed with the direction to return the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the Sipani Montana Diesel Car with interests at the rate of 18% p.a. from 17.10.1990 till payment with costs of Rs. 200/-.

MR. S.B. Dubey, learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the decision of National Commission in case of M.S. & S. Engineers v. K.V. Giri & Ors., III (1994) CPJ 114 (NC), submitted that appellant was the dealer who received the demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- issued by respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 2, the manufacturer of the car which in turn was sent to the respondent No. 2, therefore, the appellant as a dealer cannot be made liable to refund the amount jointly or severally. Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has been filed by the respondent No. 2 alongwith copy of order passed in Case No. 40/98 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short ''BIFR'') (a copy of which has been filed in Appeal No. 1476/99 before this Commission). Therefore, in the light of the order of the BIFR passed in Case No. 40/98 for final reconstruction, proceedings in the present case be stayed under Section 22 of the said Act till further orders.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum making jointly liable for refund of the booking amount cannot be passed in view of the decision of National Commission in case of M.S. & S. Engineers v. K.V. Giri & Ors. (supra), as the demand draft was not in the name of the appellant.

THE respondent No. 2 has not preferred any appeal against the order of the District Forum therefore, the question of stay of the proceedings in this appeal does not arise. However, if respondent No. 2 so advised, may raise the objection and may make a prayer in execution proceedings before the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent that appellant shall not be liable to return the amount jointly as ordered by the District Forum. However, respondent No. 2, the manufacturer shall be liable to return the amount and interest with costs as ordered by the District Forum. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith record of the case. Appeal partly allowed.