PREMIER LIMITED Vs. KULDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision by opposite party No. 1 is directed against the order dated 2. 1. 2006 of M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal partly allowing appeal against the order dated 27. 3. 2004 of a District Forum holding the petitioner liable to refund the booking amount jointly and severally with Fiat India Private Limited-respondent No. 3, to respondent No. 1. Rest of the order of District Forum regarding payment of interest and cost was not disturbed. District Forum had ordered the petitioner to pay the booking amount of Rs. 21,000 along with interest @ 12% p. a. w. e. f. 24. 2. 1996 as also cost of Rs. 300.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1/complainant on 14. 2. 1996 had deposited with the petitioner Company through its dealer-respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 a sum of Rs. 21,000 towards booking of Uno car manufactured by the petitioner Company. Car was not delivered to respondent No. 1. Complaint was therefore filed by respondent No. 1. On contest, the complaint by the District Forum and appeal preferred by the petitioner by the State Commission were disposed of in the manner noticed above.

(3.) COPY of the Assignment Deed dated 30. 3. 1993 referred to in the order of State Commission is at pages 29 to 36. This Deed would show that the petitioner had assigned its rights and liabilities to respondent No. 3 (impleaded as a part in appeal) who in turn had undertaken the responsibility for refund of the booking amount received by the petitioner Company from various customers. Assignment Deed is written on stamp paper worth Rs. 3,18,00,000 and was registered with the Stamp Office, Mumbai. Submission advanced by Mr. Ashish Makhija for the petitioner is that as the Deed is registered, it will be deemed that the public including respondent No. 1 had the knowledge thereof. Reliance is placed on the decision in Md. Nehaluddin and Another v. Md. Sajid and Another, AIR 2007 Pat. 143. Further submission advanced is that as the business of petitioner Company was purchased as a going concern by respondent No. 3 it is the liability of respondent No. 3 under the said Deed of Assignment to pay the booking amount along with interest to respondent No. 1. In support of this submission, reliance is placed in the decision in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, 130 (2006) DLT 260. It is pointed out that in similar circumstance in FA No. 1593 of 2004, same State Commission has exonerated the petitioner of refunding the booking amount. Having considered the ratio of said two decisions and the said Deed of Assignment, the petitioner cannot be held liable to refund the booking amount along with interest. It is the liability of respondent No. 3 to refund it. Order of State Commission, thus, cannot be legally sustained.