AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE Revision Petitioner is well founded in his submission that the impugned order of the State Commission, where under the petitioner who is only the dealer has been made jointly responsible along with the manufacturer of the vehicle for refunding the amount of deposit that had been made by the Respondent towards the cost of the car is not just or legal. THE record clearly discloses that the Demand Draft which was presented by the complainant in payment of the deposit of price was drawn in favour of the manufacturer and the dealer had duly forwarded it to the manufacturer immediately after receipt of the same from the respondent. In these circumstances the liability to refund the amount was only that of the manufacturer. Hence the order passed by the State Commission in so far as it is against the manufacturer namely, M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd., the 2nd respondent herein, can alone be confirmed. THE order passed against the dealer (Revision Petitioner herein) making him jointly liable for refunding the said deposit amount will stand set aside. THE order of the State Commission will stand modified as above. Petition allowed.