[2008) 16 S.C.R. 45

PREM NATH MOTORS LTD.

ANURAG MITI AL

(Civil Appeal No. 6656 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 14, 2008 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.]

Contract Act, 1872 - s. 230 - Booking of car pursuant to advertisement by Car manufacturing company - On nonc allotment of car, refund of booking amount sought - On failure thereof, claim before MRTP Commission - Dealer of the company making application that it was not liable to refund being only an agent of the Company - Dismissal of application - On appeal held: Agent is not liable for the acts D of a disclosed principal subject to contract to the contrary - On facts,. no contract to the contrary pleaded - Hence, dealer company not liable to refund the booking amount - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - s. 12-8.

An international car manufacturing company entered into agreement for manufacture and sale of•. a particular model of a car with an Indian Cai' manufacturing company. Appellant company was the dealer/agent of the Indian Company.

In pursuance of an advertisement by the contracting companies, respondent No.1 applied for allotment of a car with the booking amount. On non-delivery of the car, respondent No. 1 sough refund of the amount. On failure G

). thereof, he filed a petition u/s. 12-B of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Appellant-company filed application before MRTP Commission on the plea

that, it being only an agent/dealer was not liable to refund

45 H

A the amount. Application was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically B 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.

Appellant-company was dealer of the Indian Company, with whom the lntern'ational Company had entered into c an agreement. The appellant had nothing to do with the advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said l:ar. The cheque submitted by the individual person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the name of the Indian Car D manufacturing Company and the appellant Company had no other role except to send the same to the Indian Company. [Para.s 3 and 4) [48-A; 48-E; 47-C; 47-H]

Marine Contained; Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Gannents AIR 1999 (SC) 80 - relied on. , E

Case Law Reference :

AIR1999 (SC) 80 Relied on.

Para 4

CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No.

F 6656 of 2008.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2004 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in Review Petition 14 of 2004 in C.A. No. 502 of 2000.

lrshad Ahmad for the Appellant.

P.N. Puri, Dhiraj, Sanjeev Sharma and Reeta Dewan Puri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.

PREM NATH MOTORS LTD. v. ANURAG MITIAL 47

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A 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: B " 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 c in India.

The original agreement of M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France was with Mis. Kalyan Motors Company Limited which was incorporated during 1994. Subsequently, M/s. Kalyan D 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 E interested in purchasing the said car, applied to M/s Pal Peugeot Limited at: Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombilvli- 421204, Dist!. Thane, Maharashtra.

"' Some individuals like the respondent No.1 submitted their application at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of F 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 G

) . had nothing to do with the advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said car. 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 H

A the individual person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the name of Mis Pal Peugeot Limited and Prem Nath Motors Limited, i.e. the appellant herein had no other role except to send the same to Mis Pal Peugeot Limited.

B 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.25,0001-. As the said amount was not refunded, c 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

D liability, if any, was of Mis. Pal Peugeot to pay to respondent.

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

4. Section 230 oflhe Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an agent is' not liable for the acts of a disclosed

•' E 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 Mare Contained Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Garments IR 1999 (SC) 80 where a similar .order passed under the Consumer

"" F Protection Act was sef aside by this Court. It was held that by

t.--

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

G Bench of this Court iri Civil Appeal 665312005 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1956212004.

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

K.K.T.

Appeal allowed.

..,