CS/58/2012 on 28 December 2013

1. Sai Automobiles Authorized Dealer: Force Motors Ltd., Head Office Vaknaghat, District Solan (H.P.) through its Managing Director and Sole Proprietor Shri Sachin Doger, son of Shri Hari Om, resident of Mona Villa, below Gurudwara Sahib Ji, Sanjauli, Shimla – 171 006 (H.P.)

2. Forece Motors Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Puna- 411035, through its Managing Director.

3. Shri Sachin Doger, son of Shri Hari Om resident of Mona Villa below gurudwara Sahib Ji, Sanjauli, Shimla -171 006 (H.P.).

.....Defendants.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. For the Plaintiff :

Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate

For the Defendants : Mr. Thakur Sain, Advocate for defendants No.1 & 3.

Mr. Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate for defendant No.2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

The present suit is filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.23,81,638/- against the defendants together with interest pendentlite and future at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. It is only defendant No.2, which has filed the written statement denying therein its liability to pay the suit amount for want of any transaction between the plaintiff and the said defendant. As regards defendant No.3, who is also sole proprietor of defendant No.1, there is no challenge to the suit and rather the said defendant in his statement recorded in this Court on 15.10.2012, has admitted his liability to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 9th July, 2012. The text of his statement reads as follows:- “ I admit the claim of the plaintiff. I admit that a sum of Rs.23,81,638/- was due and payable to the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. I admit that the plaintiff is also entitled to interest thereupon @ 18% per annum from the date the suit was filed i.e. 9th July, 2012. I undertake to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of three months from today. I have been explained the consequences of breach of the undertaking. I would however request that interim order dated 10th July, 2012 be modified and I be permitted to sell the suit property. Even if the sale deed in relation to the suit property is not executed, I still undertake to pay the suit amount within the aforesaid period.

3. Defendant No.3 has failed to liquidate his liability in terms of the statement he made before this Court. Pursuant to the order passed on the previous date, he is present in person and learned counsel on instructions submits that keeping in view the admission on the part of defendant

No.3, the suit can be decreed. It is defendants No.1 and 3 alone, can be held liable to pay the suit amount because the transaction with respect to purchase of two numbers fabricated and furnished vehicles i.e. Force Traveller DV Smart BS III-3350 WB with Power Steering (270 Deg.Hinges), no doubt, a product of defendant No.2, was between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 3 and not with defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 could have been held liable, had the order been placed before the said defendant by defendant No.3, who claims himself to be the authorized dealer of defendant No.2. Otherwise also, it is defendant No.3, who has admitted his liability to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff.

4. In this view of the matter, there is no need to try this suit any further and the same can be decreed on the statement made by defendant No.3, before this Court.

5. Consequently, a decree for recovery of `23,81,638/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 9th July, 2012 is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No.1 and 3 jointly and severally. The court fee be refunded to the plaintiff as per Rules. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

December 28, 2012. (Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary), (ps)

Judge.