Prem Nath Motors Ltd vs Anurag Mittal

Anurag Mittal ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by Monopolies

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, (in short

`Commission') dismissing the application filed by the present appellant.

1

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

An International Car Manufacturing Company i.e. M/s. Automobiles

Peugeot of France had entered into a joint venture agreement with

manufactures of Premier Cars in India which had a network of dealers

spread all over the country, for the purpose of manufacturing and sale of

Peugeot 309 models car in India.

The original agreement of M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France was

with M/s. Kalyan Motors Company Limited which was incorporated during

1994. Subsequently, M/s. Kalyan Motors was named Pal Peugeot

Limited/Premier Automobiles Limited.

Thereafter M/s Pal Peugeot Limited gave advertisements in various

newspapers, inviting application for Priority-cum-Registration of Peugeot

309 cars. The individual who were interested in purchasing the said car,

applied to M/s Pal Peugeot Limited at: Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada,

Dombilvli-421204, Distt. Thane, Maharashtra.

2

Some individuals like the respondent No.1 submitted their application

at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Pal

Peugeot.

It is pertinent to point out that Prem Nath Motors Limited was dealer

of Pal Motors, with whom the Peugeot Company had entered into an

agreement. Petitioner before Commission had nothing to do with the

advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said.

In fact, the individuals had submitted their applications at Prem Nath

Motor's office only due to above reasons.

It is also necessary to add that the cheque submitted by the individual

person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the

name of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited and Prem Nath Motors Limited, i.e. the

appellant herein had no other role except to send the same to M/s Pal

Peugeot Limited.

But the individual i.e. the respondent No.1 herein who seems to had

applied for "Peugeot 309 Car" did not get the delivery and, therefore, asked

for the refund of the booking amount of Rs.25,000/-. As the said amount

3 was not refunded, the respondent No.1 filed a Claim Petition under Section

12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short

the `Act') on the grounds of failures on the part of respondents to refund the

said amount.

The appellant's stand before the Commission was that the liability, if

any, was of M/s. Pal Peugeot to pay to respondent. According to the

appellant it was only the agent/dealer of said party.

4. Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an

agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to a contract

of the contrary. No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded. An

identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Marine Contained

Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Garments AIR 1999 (SC) 80 where a

similar order passed under the Consumer Protection Act was set aside by

this Court. It was held that by virtue of Section 230 the agent could not be

sued when the principal had been disclosed.

5. A similar view has been expressed by a three judge Bench of this

Court in Civil Appeal 6653/2005 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19562/2004.

4

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi:

November 14, 2008

5