PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Since both the revision petitions are based on similar facts and involve identical questions of fact and law, they have been taken up and considered together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Respondent No.1 in both the cases are the original complainants. They booked a Pal Peugeot Car 309 on or about 25.10.1995 by depositing Rs.25,000/- with the petitioner who is the authorized dealer of respondent No.2. Petitioner was opposite party No.1 and respondent No.2 was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum. Since there was no progress in the delivery of the said car till the end of September 1997, the complainants cancelled the booking of the said car vide letter dated

3.10.1997 returning receipt-cum-priority card duly signed by them to the opposite party requesting for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest in each case. When the complainants did not receive the amount of refund of their deposit, they issued a legal notice dated 26.5.1999 to the opposite party No.2 but there was no response. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1/respondent No.2 and opposite party No.2/petitioner, the complainants lodged their complaints with the District Forum. Opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 resisted the allegations and the claims of the complainants by filing reply before the District Forum in which it was stated that the booking was cancelled on

1.10.1997 and the complaint was filed on 28.3.2003, i.e., after a delay of 2002 days which means it was barred by limitation and hence is liable for dismissal. It was also submitted that the deposit of Rs.25,000/- was made with opposite party No.2 who is liable and responsible for the refund of the same and the complainant is not entitled to any relief from opposite party No.1. Finally, it was stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1 and hence opposite party No.1 is not at all liable to refund the said booking amount. 3. While opposite party No.2 appeared before the District Forum but no written statement was filed on its behalf. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and documents placed before it, the District Forum vide identical orders dated 31.10.2006 accepted the complaints and held both the opposite party No.1, i.e., manufacturer and opposite party No.2, i.e., the dealer who is petitioner herein jointly and severally to refund to the complainants the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest thereon from the date of booking, i.e., 25.10.1995 till realization and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment along with cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/- in each case. Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in each case. The State Commission vide its identical orders passed on 13.4.2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 44 days in filing the appeal although there was a prayer for condonation of delay. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petitions have been filed. 4. During the course of the proceedings, on an application for impleadment, official liquidator of opposite party No.2 was allowed to be included as respondent No.3 in the array of respondents and notice was issued to him. 5. We have heard Mr. H.K. Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Surekha Raman, Amicus Curiae for respondent No.1. None has appeared for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Before making submissions in support of the petition on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of specific prayer made by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 44 of days which occurred on account of reasons beyond control of the petitioner, the State Commission erred in rejecting the prayer without giving opportunity to place necessary documents in support of the prayer which resulted in dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation thereby denying an opportunity to the petitioners for being heard on merits. He submitted that the two documents placed on record with the permission of this Commission clearly explain the delay of 44 days in question and hence urged upon this Commission to condone the delay and consider the revision petitions on merits. We accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the two documents, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case in which the delay of 44 days should have been condoned by the State Commission and the appeals decided on merits. 6. On merits, it is seen that the basic facts by and large are not under dispute. The only question of law which has been raised through the present revision petitions is as to whether the liability for refund of the amount deposited for the booking of the vehicle rests on the manufacturer of the vehicle (respondent No.2/opposite party No.1) or the authorized dealer (petitioner/opposite party No.2) or both. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners acted as a mere window to receive the booking amount of Rs.25,000/- as the dealer of the manufacturers, i.e., respondent No.2 and passed on the entire amount to the manufacturers, viz., M/s Pal Peugeot Ltd. and no amount was retained by the petitioners and hence the liability for refund of booking amount solely rests with the manufacturers only. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a number of judgments of the National Commission in the cases of T.V. Sundaram Ivengar & Sons. Ltd. Vs. CNR Consumer Rights Protection Cell and Others (Revision petition No.1970 of 2000), M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Shri Chotelal S. Mallah and Anr. (Revision Petition No.152 of 2006) and M/s Premier Ltd. Vs. Ratilal Varodiya and Anr. (Revision petition No.4021 of 2006). Learned counsel further submitted that the SLP filed against the judgement of the National Commission in the case of Ratilal Varodiya (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 28.4.2008 in which it was observed by the Apex Court that it does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the view taken by the National Commission successively in the aforesaid cases and also the dismissal of the SLP against such a view by the Apex Court, learned counsel pleaded that the law is well settled on this issue and there should not be any doubt about it in holding the manufacturer, i.e., (opposite party No.1/respondent No.2) as solely liable to refund the booking amount. He further pointed out that since the manufacturer Co. M/s Pal Peugeot Ltd. has gone into liquidation and an Official Liquidator has been appointed, in pursuance of a direction of this Commission, the petitioners had made efforts to locally ascertain from the Official Liquidator the status of payments, if any, towards refund of deposits made by other intending purchasers at the relevant time and based on the reply received from the official liquidator, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioners along with the reply dated 25.11.2011 received from the Official Liquidator. The reply of the Official Liquidator contains broad details of the claims received by the Official Liquidator in response to his notice for filing of such claims with him and the claims received are at various stages of adjudication and admission as per the details given in his reply. In view of this, he submitted that it is up to the complainant / respondent No.1 to approach the Official Liquidator for settling his claim by taking necessary action since the liability for making the refund of the deposited amount rests with the manufacturer Co. (in liquidation). 7. Taking into consideration the catena of judgements of this Commission and the view taken by the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP against one such judgement of this Commission, we hereby set aside the impugned order dated

13.4.2007 of the State Commission against the petitioners and hold that the liability to refund the deposited booking amount is that of manufacturer alone. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum also stands modified to this extent. Since lot of time has passed since the passing of the order of the District Forum and the State Commission and the matter was involved in litigation, in view of today order, the complainant/respondent No.1 in each case is granted liberty to pursue the recovery proceedings against opposite party No.1/its Official Liquidator in terms of the modified order of the District Forum in accordance with law and if the complainant chooses to do so, he may claim the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent before the consumer Fora in accordance with the ruling given by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583 }. The two revision petitions stand allowed and disposed of in terms of these directions with no order as to costs. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER