REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.         OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19515 of 2004)

Prem Nath Motors Ltd.  ....Appellant

Versus

Anurag Mittal  ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  order  passed  by  Monopolies

Restrictive  Trade  Practices  Commission,  New  Delhi,  (in  short

‘Commission’) dismissing the application filed by the present appellant.  

1

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

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 in India.

The original agreement of M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France was

with M/s. Kalyan Motors Company Limited which was incorporated during

1994.   Subsequently,  M/s.  Kalyan  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 interested in purchasing the said car,

applied  to  M/s  Pal  Peugeot  Limited  at:  Kalyan  Shil  Road,  Manpada,

Dombilvli-421204, Distt. Thane, Maharashtra.

2

Some individuals like the respondent No.1 submitted their application

at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of 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  had  nothing  to  do  with  the

advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said.

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 the individual

person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the

name of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited and Prem Nath Motors Limited, i.e. the

appellant  herein  had  no  other  role  except  to  send  the  same  to  M/s  Pal

Peugeot Limited.

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.25,000/-. As the said amount

3

was not refunded, 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 liability, if

any,  was  of  M/s.  Pal  Peugeot  to  pay  to  respondent.   According  to  the

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

4. 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

of the contrary.  No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded.  An

identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Marine Contained

Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs.  Go Go Garments AIR 1999 (SC) 80 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.                                

5. A similar view has been expressed by a three judge Bench of this

Court in Civil Appeal 6653/2005 arising out of S.L.P. (C)  No.19562/2004.

4

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

………………….…………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………….…………………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi: November 14, 2008

5