PREM NATH MOTORS LTD.versusANURAG MITTAL

                         [2008) 16 S.C.R. 45


                    PREM NATH MOTORS LTD.                           A
                                 v.
                         ANURAG MITIAL
                  (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 non- c
     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.                                                          E
         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.                                                F
          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
    46        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 16 S.C.R.


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 ELLATE 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.
G
          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
     Motors was named Pal Peugeot Limited/Premier Automobiles D
     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
    48        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2008] 16 S.C.R.


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,
    the respondent No.1 filed a Claim Petition under Section 12-B
c   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 Mar~e 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
  Bench of this Court iri Civil Appeal 665312005 arising out of
G S.L.P. (C) No.1956212004.
                                                                      l
         6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
    K.K.T.                                        Appeal allowed.



                                                                              ..,