B L RAGINI Vs. LOHIA MACHINES LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1 have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. The respondent is served and is unrepresented. The petitioner's learned Advocate demonstrates to me that there is absolutely no dispute on facts in this case that the petitioner had booked a scooter and paid the amount of Rs. 500-00 which the Company i. e. defendant-1 was liable to refund since the booking was cancelled. The suit was undefended and in order to dispose of the same expeditiously, the plaintiffs learned Advocate deleted original defendant-1 which was the company which is located at kanpur. This is perhaps understandable. The difficulty of serving D-1 would have only delayed the disposal of the proceeding. Petitioner's learned Advocate clarifies that D-l is represented in Bangalore City itself in so far as the regional office of the limited company is located here and that the 2nd defendant is admittedly also the dealer for this region. His contention therefore is that D-2 is synonymous with defendant-1.

(2.) THE only ground on which the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit is that the liability to refund was that of defedant-1 namely the company and that since D-l was deleted, the proceeding cannot survive against D-2 as no decree can be passed against the 2nd defendant. I am completely in agreement with the submission canvassed by the petitioner's learned advocate that this order is wholly and completely erroneous. What the learned trial Judge has overlooked is the fact that the office located at Bangalore is the regional office of the very limited company and that therefore, there is no difference between D-l and D-2. On these special facts, it was quite unnecessary for D-1 to have been made a party-defendant at all. Secondly, even assuming that D-2 was in the role of an agent, the law is very clear in so far as the privity of contract is between the plaintiff and the agent at Bangalore, the liability in this case does devolve on the principal. More importantly however, it is necessary to emphasise that the principal is always liable for the acts of the agent and under these circumstances, the suit itself was virtually indefensible.

(3.) THE order passed by the Trial Court is accordingly seta side. The suit is decreed with interest at the rate of 6% p. a. all through. The office shall accordingly draw up the decree. The plaintiff-petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. The civil revision petition succeeds. No order as to costs in this proceedings.