SHABINA MOTORS vs HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLES LTD

AFTER carefully going through the records of the case and hearing Counsel appearing on both sides. We have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that this original petition has to fail on the short ground that the complainant before me is not a "consumer" as defined in the Act.

THE Opposite Party herein who is manufacturer of Hero Honda Motor Cycles had advertised in the middle of 1988 for the grant of a "service point franchise" at Trichur. In response to the said advertisement, the complainant applies and he was appointed to run the service point of the Opposite Party at Trichur. In the year 1989, negotiations were held the complainant with the Opposite Party for upgrading its service point into a regular dealership for Hero Honda vehicles. The grievance put forward in the complain is that even though he of fulfilled all the qualifications and had even constructed a most suitable modern showroom in anticipation of its being appointed dealer, the Opposite Party chose to publish an advertisement in the newspapers calling for applications for appointment as dealer. In the meantime the service point franchise arrangements with the complainant was terminated by the Opposite Party. It is alleged in the complaint that "the complainant has suffered huge monetary loss as a direct result of the ''unfair trade practices'' of the Opposite Party by not fulfilling the promises of granting the dealership as committed and that too after causing the complainant to spend which enormous amount. On this basis the complainant has sought to recover a total compensation of Rs. 57,88,515/- from the Opposite Party.

It would be seen from what has been narrated that the crux of the grievance put forward in the complaint is that Opposite Party had wrongly failed to appoint the complainant as its dealer for Hero Honda Motor Cycles in Trichur despite assurances having been given to the complainant that his service point franchise would be upgraded by the grant of dealership.

AT the outset itself we may dispose of the plea taken by the complainant that there has been "unfair trade practice" on the part of the Opposite Party in failing to fulfill the promise of granting dealership to the complainant. Counsel for the complainant has not been able to show under what clause of the definition of the expression "unfair trade practice" contained in Section 36A if the M.R.T.P. Act, the Opposite Party could be said to have been guilty of the charge. Mere failure on the part of the Opposite Party to fulfill a promise of granting dealership to the complainant (assuming that there was in fact any such promise or assurance was held out by the Opposite Party will not constitute "unfair trade practice'' as defined in the Act. Hence the said ground taken in the complaint has only to be rejected. The Complainant was only an aspirant for the grant of dealership. There was no arrangement of ''hiring of service'' of the Opposite Party by the complainant so as to entitle the complainant to charge the Opposite Party with deficiency in service. When there has been no arrangement of ''hiring of service'' for consideration, the complainant cannot be regarded as a "consumer" as defined in the Act and hence he is not entitled to maintain this complaint under the Act.

IN the light of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss this original petition but direct the parties to pay their respective costs. Original Petition dismissed.