Both the dealer and manufacturer were held liable to refund the money in this case, and the appellants were liable for unauthorizedly retaining the money and directed to pay interest as per the booking order.

ORDER

1. The appellants being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda in C.D. Case No.101 of 1999 on 20.4.2004 have preferred this appeal. The Forum below while allowing the complaint petition filed by the complainant has directed both the appellants to pay Rs. 25,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 15.12.1996 and cost of Rs. 500.

2. The fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000 with the opposite party No.1 (appellant No. 2) through the opposite party No. 2 (appellant No.1) for purchase of a car. Subsequently, the complainant cancelled the booking order and claimed refund of the booking amount of Rs. 25,000. The opposite parties vide their letter dated 25.12.1996 intimated the complainant that the process of refund is in progress, but did not refund the same, for which the complainant approach the Forum below by filing a complaint.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

4. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The District Forum has rightly observed that they have got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The contention of the opposite parties that the Courts at Bombay has got exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes have rightly been overruled by the District Forum by relying a judgment reported in 1999 CPJ 849. The District Forum also rightly held that since the opposite parties (appellants) unauthorizedly retained the money, they are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum as per Clause 12 of the booking order. So District Forum has not done any illegality while passing the above order.

5. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel of the appellants argued that as per the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission as well as of this Commission, the manufacturer Premier Automobiles Ltd. (appellant No. 2) is only liable to refund the money, not the dealer Kalinga Auto Centre Ltd. (appellant No.1). We closely analyse those decisions. In the ORDER pronounced by the Hon'ble National Commission, the dealer alone has preferred the appeal in which they had taken the stand that as they handed over the money to the manufacturer and as the money has been retained by the manufacturer, the dealer is not liable to pay the money to the complainant. Similarly in the ORDER pronounced by this Commission also in C.D.A. No. 221 of 2001, the dealer has preferred the appeal alone and it is also their case is that they have handed over the money to the manufacturer and the money is lying with the manufacturer. So, in the premises, the Hon'ble National Commission and this Commission has directed the manufacturer to refund the money. But, in the present case, it was neither pleaded by the dealer that they have handed over the money to the manufacturer nor produced any proof in support of that. Neither in the written version nor in the memo of appeal, such plea was taken by the appellant. Besides that the present appeal was preferred by both the dealer and manufacturer. So the decisions cited by the appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In view of our above discussion, the order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed and the appeal is dismissed without cost.

Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.