ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. NATIONAL GARAGETHROUGH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 02/07/2004 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.1- B/2004 whereby the learned lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of two defendants and exonerated them from the liability of refund to the plaintiff / appellant herein.

(2.) The appellant, desirous of purchasing a car, booked purchase of vehicle by drawing a cheque in the sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of Pal-Peugeot Ltd. through its agent - M/s. National Garage, Link Road, Bilaspur and its office - M/s. National Garage, G.E. Road, Raipur. Later on, when the vehicle was not supplied as per the schedule, the plaintiff decided to cancel the booking and accordingly cancelled. The plaintiff, then claimed refund of the amount as, despite repeated reminders and letters sent by the plaintiff to defendant - M/s. Pal-Peugeot Ltd. and to the agents, other defendants, suit came to be filed by the plaintiff not only against the principal but also against the agent. Learned Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 31/10/2002, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against all the defendants which included principal as well as agents. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, M/s. National Garage, Bilaspur and M/s. National Garage, Raipur filed an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court. The main ground of appeal was that in view of provisions contained in Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872 (for short 'Contract Act'), the agents are not liable for the acts of the principal and the liability, if any, was on the principal and not on the agent. This argument found favour with the learned lower Appellate Court and the appeal was allowed exonerating the agents. Against this judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff which was admitted by this Court on following substantial question of law -

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that present is a case covered under Section 233 of the Contract Act and not under Section 230 thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff has not only specifically pleaded but also led reliable and clinching evidence that the plaintiff decided to purchase a car because of the assurance given to him by the respondent / agent having local office at Bilaspur and Raipur. It is submitted that the plaintiff would not have ventured to purchase vehicle had there been no agent at Bilaspur and Raipur as there is no question for the plaintiff going all the way to Thane, Maharashtra and book the vehicle. It was the facility provided by the agents in Bilaspur and Raipur that the plaintiff decided to buy the vehicle by way of sale and delivery at Bilaspur and the plaintiff proceeded to book the vehicle by paying advance of Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even though, the draft was drawn in the name of Pal-Peugeot Ltd., it was submitted to the said manufacturer only through local agent i.e. respondent / agents. When the plaintiff sent various reminders, it is the agent, through whom, reminders were sent and the agent, time and again, also wrote for refunds. Therefore, if finally refund is not made, liability would be of the agent as envisaged under Section 233 of the Contract Act. It is also submitted that the defendant / agents failed to specifically plead and prove by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence that at the time of booking of the vehicle, the agent disclosed the name of the principal. In such a case, where the agents have not disclosed the name of the principal, there is statutory presumption to the contrary as contemplated under Section 230 of the Contract Act and in that event, the agent would also be personally bound to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff and he cannot seek exoneration from the liability by taking shield of Section 230 of the Contract Act.