PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. RAM KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a manufacturer of automobiles. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. , the appellant alongwith its dealer Delhi Automobilies Ltd. were directed by District Forum, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated June 2, 1998 to refund Rs.3,10,050/- alongwith 18% p. a. interest thereon to the complainant Ram Kumar Sharma who had paid the aforesaid amount for purchase of a Premier Car which was not supplied. The claim of the appellant is that a sum of Rs.2,80,050/- allegedly paid by the complainant to the dealer was not forwarded to the appellant hence to that extent, liability could not be fastened upon the appellant. During arguments, it was further stated that the Premier Automobiles Ltd. Company has been merged with a new Company known as Paul Peugeot Limited who was not impleaded as a party. As far as the second point is concerned, it is of no consequences since the appeal has been filed by Premier Automobiles Limited. For all intents and purposes, the appellant represents M/s. Paul Peugeot Limited.

(2.) On January 22, 1994, Ram Kumar Sharma deposited Rs.20,000/- with Delhi Automobiles Ltd. at the time of booking of the car. Subsequently, he paid Rs.2,90,050/- vide Demand Draft dated May 16, 1996. Since there was failure on the part of opposite party to deliver the car, the complainant had to approach the District Forum with the complaint. Delhi Automobiles Limited who was represented before the District Forum admitted having received the aforesaid amount, however, stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was forwarded to Premier Automobiles Limited and that they were ready to refund the amount of Rs.3,10,050/-. Premier Automobiles Limited was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. It is in the grounds of appeal, it is asserted that the Delhi Automobiles Limited did not forward a sum of Rs.2,90,050/-.

(3.) When a manufacturer of cars approached the public for purchase of their car for getting the same booked with the dealers (set of dealers in the country), such dealers would be acting as agents of the manufacturer. When there is deficiency in rendering service either on the part of the manufacturer or their agents, the consumer would be entitled to claim remedies against the both. Such like matter came up before this Commission in M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited V/s. Surinder Pal Garg and Anr., 1997 2 CPJ 15, wherein the Kelvinator Company had taken up the stand that they were selling their Refrigerators of Kelvinator Make to another Company who subsequently had appointed distributors and dealers throughout the country and have given guarantee/warantee for proper functioning of the Refrigerator, hence, Kelvinator Company, the manufacturer of such Refrigerator were not liable to meet the liabilities under the guarantee/warantee. This contention did not prevail with this Commission and it was held that the manufacturer of the article is equally liable for the defect or deficiency therein. The ratio of the decision aforesaid can be applied to the case in hand although there is no material produced alongwith the appeal that there was direct sale of cars as manufactured by the appellant Company to their dealers. Even if it was so, the manufacturer of cars cannot be exempted from liability of either contracts of sale or contracts of hiring services. If Delhi Automobiles had received the amount from the consumer, it had received on behalf of the manufacturer and it is between the manufacturer and the dealer to settle their dispute among themselves. As far as consumer is concerned, he is entitled to refund of the amount against both the manufacturer and the dealer. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The order of the District Forum granting relief against both the parties is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.