RANJEET KUMAR Vs. PAL PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the District Forum is that the car dealer M/s. Prem Nath Motors who was arraigned as O.P. No. 1 in the complaint filed by him has joint and several liability along with M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd., the manufacturer of the vehicle booked by the appellant as M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. alone has been held to be liable and ordered to refund the booking amount with interest @ 9%.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - for booking of Peugeot 309 car on 16.10.1995 with respondent No. 2 M/s. Prem Nath Motors but on 1.7.1997 he cancelled the booking and sent the priority registration number duly discharged to respondent No. 1, M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. As per terms and conditions of booking it was M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. who was bound to make the refund within a period of 60 days from the date of cancellation.

(3.) THE District Forum held that respondent No. 1 M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. was alone guilty of deficiency in service as M/s. Prem Nath Motors acted as an agent of respondent No. 1 for the purpose of collecting booking amount and application form for onward transmission to respondent No. 1 on commission basis. We cannot go beyond the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. According to the terms of contract the sole liability to refund the amount was that of M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. and rightly so as the cheque in question was issued in their favour and they alone were the beneficiaries of the said amount. Respondent No. 2 M/s. Prem Nath Motors acted as an agent by charging Commission. No agent can be held jointly or severally liable unless he is the recipient of the money.