Prem Nath Motors Ltd.
Vs. Anurag Mittal [2008] INSC 1953 (14 November 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No.19515 of 2004) Prem Nath Motors Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Anurag
Mittal ....Respondent
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.
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 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.
6.
The
appeal is allowed accordingly.
...........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J.(Dr.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New
Delhi:
Back
Pages: 1 2
