Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short “the Commission”) dismissing the application filed by the present appellant.
3. The 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 manufacturers 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 model cars in India.
4. 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 applications for priority-cum-registration of Peugeot 309 cars. The individuals who were interested in purchasing the said car applied to M/s Pal Peugeot Limited at Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombivli 421204, District Thane, Maharashtra. Some individuals like Respondent 1 submitted their application at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of Rs 25,000 in the name of Pal Peugeot.
5. It is pertinent to point out that Prem Nath Motors Limited was a dealer of Pal Motors, with whom Peugeot Company had entered into an agreement. The petitioner before the Commission had nothing to do with the advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said cars. In fact, the individuals had submitted their applications at Prem Nath Motors' office only due to the above reasons.
6. 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 Respondent 1 herein who seems to have 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 was not refunded, Respondent 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 failure on the part of the 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 the respondent. According to the appellant, it was only an agent/dealer of the said party.
7. 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, 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. A similar view has been expressed by a three-judge Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6653 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19562 of 2004 (2009) 17 SCC 657.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.