EICHER TRACTORS Vs. B KUBENDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision by O. P. Nos. 1 and 3/petitioners is to the order dated 12. 9. 2007 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 20. 6. 2007 of a District Forum whereby petitioners were directed to deliver a new Eicher tractor and in default to refund the amount of Rs. 2,10,748 with interest @ 10% p. a. from 29. 1. 2001 as also pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 to respondent No. 1/complainant.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 for purchase of a tractor manufactured by the petitioners paid Rs. 50,000 towards advance on 15. 12. 2000 to respondent No. 2/o. P. No. 2, dealer of the petitioners. The price of the tractor being Rs. 2,10,748, for balance amount a Demand Draft was purchased in favour of the petitioners i. e. , M/s. Eicher Tractors and handed over by respondent No. 1. On tractor not being supplied despite payment of said amounts, complaint seeking certain reliefs was filed by respondent No. 1 which was contested by filing written versions by respondent No. 2 and the petitioners separately. Application for condonation of delay in filing complaint was also filed by respondent No. 1 to which reply was filed by the petitioners. The District Forum after condoning the delay in question allowed the complaint against which appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed as noticed above.

(3.) MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Ajay Dahiya for petitioners is that the petitioners had supplied to respondent Nos. 2 and 8 to 10 Eicther tractors in advance. Relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 was not that of the principal and agent and the orders passed by Fora below, therefore, could not bave been made against the petitioners. Complaint was also barred by limitation. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on the decision in Vijay Traders v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. , I (1996) CLT 16 (SC)= (1995) 6 SCC 566. Attention has been drawn to Clause No. 13 of the agreement at pages 98 to 102. It is pointed out in the SLP filed against the order dated 19. 1. 2006 passed in R. P. No. 2347 of 2003 by this Commission, notice has been ordered to be issued by the Supreme Court. On inquiry, Mr. Dahiya has admitted that aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,10,748 was recieved by the petitioners. Even if some tractors were supplied to respondent No. 2 by the petitioners before receipt of the said amount of Rs. 2,10,748 that itself would not render the award made by the Fora below illegal or without jurisdiction. Aforesaid Clause 13 of the document at pages 98 to 102 will have to be read along with the other clauses thereof. We are not satisfied that relationship between the petitioners and respondent No. 2-dealer was not that of principal and agent. Since the money paid by respondent No. 1 was admittedly received by the petitioners, it cannot evade supply of new tractor and/or refunding that money with interest etc. to respondent No. 1. Further respondent No. 1 is not concerned with any dispute between respondent No. 2 and the petitioners. In its order, the State Commission has recorded cogent reasons on the application for condoning the delay in filing complaint by respondent No. 1 and it does not call for any interference in revsisional jurisdiction. Vijay Traders's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. There is no substance in this revision and it is, therefore, dismissed being without any merits. R. P. dismissed.