Case: VIVEK AUTOMOBILES LIMITED Vs. INDIAN INC

5. The appellant is admittedly a dealer for selling Peugeot cars manufactured by Respondent 2 Company in India. Respondent 1 had submitted an application along with a cheque of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Respondent 2 for purchase of a car. The delivery of the car was not made by Respondent 2. Respondent 1 sought cancellation of the booking and also refund of the amount of Rs. 25,000. The letter of cancellation was accepted both by the appellant and Respondent 2. However, the amount of Rs. 25,000 was not refunded to Respondent 1.6. Respondent 1 filed a compensation application before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The notice of the application was issued both to the appellant as well as to Respondent 2. Neither of them entered appearance nor filed any reply before the Commission. The Commission came to the conclusion that on the basis of the uncontested facts a case of unfair trade practice had been made out and, accordingly, directed both the appellant and Respondent 2 to refund the booking amount of Rs. 25,000 to Respondent 1 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of deposit to the date of refund together with costs quantifying at Rs. 5000.

Reasoning: 2. It appears that the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (the MRTP Commission) in this case has proceeded on the basis that the appellant had not filed any answer to the notice and an order was passed holding the appellant together with Respondent 2 liable to refund an amount of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to Respondent 1. The earlier part of the order of the Commission itself records that the appellant had in fact filed a reply to the notice.7. The order of the Commission has been challenged only by the appellant. We are told that Respondent 2 has gone into liquidation. In such event it will be represented by the Official Liquidator of the court within the jurisdiction of which the registered office of Respondent 2 was situated.According to the appellant it was only an agent/dealer of Respondent 2 and as such it was not liable for any payment to Respondent 1. It is submitted that the liability, if any, was that of Respondent 2 to pay Respondent 1.8. 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 to the contrary. No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded. An identical issue was considered by this Court in Marine Container Services South (P) Ltd. v. Go Go Garments, (1998) 3 SCC 247  ,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.