Car firm liable for dealer's negligence

LEGAL DIGEST

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that a car company is liable for the negligence of its dealer who failed to deliver the vehicle or return the money paid by the consumer at the time of booking the vehicle.

In this case, Fiat India appealed against the Chandigarh consumer commission, which had held that the manufacturer was liable to repay the amount with 18 per cent interest as the car was not delivered by the dealer.

Confirming the state commission order, the National Commission said the manufacturer had appointed its Chandigarh dealer.

Having done so, "it does not lie in the mouth of the manufacturer to state that it is not liable to refund the amount recovered by its dealer. The dealer may be its agent or the relations between them may be that of principal to principal basis, but to the public at large, he represents the manufacturer as the agent/dealer of the company dealing with motor vehicles."

But the national commission reduced the rate of interest from 18 per cent to 12 per cent.

SC Tank asked to pay workers' wages

The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Bombay High Court in the SV Tank & Vessel Ltd vs Engineering Workers Association case asking the employer to pay the retrenched workers back wages from 1991.

The company submitted that it was suffering financial losses and it had retrenched 33 employees and offered voluntary retirement scheme to others. Despite that some workers prevented others from joining the duty and destroyed properties, creating chaotic conditions.

The company complained to the industrial court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. While the dispute was pending, the high court asked the company to pay the back wages from 1991.

The company moved the apex court, which allowed its plea and asked it to pay only two years' back wages. It also asked the high court to decide the issue of the jurisdiction of the industrial court early.

Labour court asked to hear dispute

The Supreme Court has said in the Shahaji vs Executive Engineer, PWD, case even if there was a delay in making a reference to the labour court, if it came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal, it could suitably mould the relief to be granted to the worker in view of the delay.

The labour court in Aurangabad and the Bombay High Court, on appeal, had rejected the complaint of the worker. He was terminated in 1980.

During conciliation proceedings in 1996, the dispute was referred to the labour court, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court did not entertain the dispute on the ground that there was delay in making the reference.

The high court took the same view. But the Supreme Court set aside the high court judgment and asked the labour court to dispose of the dispute in accordance with law.