LIC UNIT NO 2 Vs. RAHUL SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., now known as Premier Ltd. has filed this revision petition against the order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (for brevity the State Commission), whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Forum (in short the District Forum).

(2.) The facts leading to the present revision petition, in brief, are , that respondent No. 1, Chotelal S. Mallah (complainant) had filed a complaint against the present petitioner and respondent No. 2, M/s. Mumbai Cycle and Motors Agency Ltd. with the averments and allegations that on 19.8.1997 he was granted a taxi permit by R.T.O., Mumbai and with a view to utilise the said permit, on 9.11.1998 the complainant placed an order for purchase of Premier Padmini Diesel 137-D Diesel Economy vehicle manufactured by the petitioner company by paying an amount of Rs. 3,000 to respondent No. 2. Afterwards, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 2,07,000 from the Hindustan Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai for purchase of a taxi and the said Bank issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,73,259 in the name of respondent No. 2. It is the case of the complainant and respondent No. 2 that the price of the vehicle, so deposited with respondent No.2, was transmitted to the manufacturer of the vehicle, i.e. the petitioner company. Despite receiving the full price of the ordered vehicle, the petitioner failed to supply the vehicle for 8 months. In the meantime, the Government of Maharashtra imposed a ban on plying of diesel run vehicles as taxes and, so, the complainant was obliged to cancel the order for the purchase of vehicle and asked for refund of the price paid by him. On his failure to get the refund, the complainant filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs. 2,76,259 together with interest @ 12% per annum from 23.3.1999 till realization. The said complaint was resisted by the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Each disputing its own liability to refund the amount. The District Forum on a consideration of the matter allowed the complaint only against the petitioner and holding it liable to refund the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum without fastening any liability on the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission but without any success. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Before discussing the merits of the revision petition it is pertinent to mention that on the date of hearing of the revision petition, two miscellaneous applications were moved on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Co-operative Bank Ltd. seeking intervention in the present proceedings on the ground that they have vital interest in the subject matter of the present revision petition inasmuch as they had advanced loan to respondent No. 1 for purchase of taxi and that respondent No. 1 is liable to repay them a sum of Rs. 3,65,000 on that account and, therefore, they are entitled to the amount receivable by respondent No. 1 in terms of the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed, by the State Commission. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and we are of the opinion that Hindustan Co-operative Bank Ltd. is neither a necessary nor proper party in the present proceedings. Their right for realisation of the loan amount from respondent No.1, borrower is dependent on the agreement between them and respondent No.1. Merely because an award has been made in favour of respondent No. 1, who took loan from the applicant, is by itself not a factor sufficient to array them a party in these proceedings, more particularly so when they were not impleaded as a party in the proceedings either before the District Forum or the State Commission. We, therefore, dismiss the application with the observation that the applicant will be free to pursue their remedy in accordance with law.