IMPORTANT POINT
Where relationship between manufacturer and dealer as per dealership agreement was “principal-to-principal basis” manufacturer could not be held liable for deficiency on part of dealer.

Ashok Bhan, President—Maruti Udyog Limited-petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.

2. Admitted facts between the parties are:

Mr. Nagender Prasad Sinha, respondent no.1 herein, booked a Maruti 800 Standard car on 12.01.1999 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,154.89 with Ashish Automobiles, a division of Somani Swiss Industries Limited-respondent no.2 herein, who was the dealer of the petitioner. The money was deposited by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner/manufacturer. The said demand draft was transmitted to the petitioner by respondent no.2 and the amount thereof was duly credited in the account of the petitioner. However, no car was delivered to the respondent no.1 either by the dealer or by the petition within the stipulated time of 4-6 weeks.

3. Respondent no.1, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) on 08.06.1999 and the District Forum, by its Order dated 20.10.1999, directed both the petitioner and respondent no.2 to deliver the car with 18% interest on the deposited money from the date of deposit till the actual date of delivery or refund the deposited money with 18% interest till the date of refund and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment to Respondent No.1.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Order of the District Forum dated 18.04.2000. During the pendency of the said Appeal, petitioner entered into an agreement dated 12.05.2000 with respondent no.2 and, thereafter, the petitioner organized the delivery of the vehicle through its other dealer, viz., Pebco Motors Limited. While taking the delivery of the car, respondent no.1 entered into MoU with respondent no.2- dealer wherein respondent no.2 agreed to pay interest @ 18% along with amount of compensation to the complainant/respondent no.1 on the booking amount as per Consumer Court Order. The car was delivered to respondent no.1 on 09.07.2000 after 1½ years from the date of booking. All this happened during the pendency of the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, by its Order dated 15.10.2003, directed the petitioner to pay the interest in terms of the Orders of the District Forum for the delayed delivery of the vehicle within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Order failing which the petitioner was made liable to pay further interest @ 18% from the date of the Order till the date of payment by holding respondent no.2 authorized dealer and agent of the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that relationship between the petitioner and Ashish Automobiles-respondent no.2 was of principal-to-principal basis. The said dealer was not an agent and had no authority to bind the company by any contract. The petitioner was not responsible for any deposits received by the said authorized dealer from the purchaser of its products. The customer was required to deposit the price of the vehicle to the authorized dealer by way of demand draft payable to the company. The authorized dealer also has to issue invoice and sale certificate to the purchaser and charge local sales tax and deposit the same in the State Government treasury. The said transaction between the dealer and the purchaser concludes on the delivery of the vehicle to the purchaser. The petitioner’s invoices of the vehicles in favour of its authorized dealer against the C-Form under the Central Sales Tax against the dealer’s fund available in the Vehicle Purchase Account. The petitioner does not earmark any vehicle in favour of any particular customer at the time of invoicing to the dealer from its works at Gurgaon and the sale of the vehicle between the authorized dealer and the