P ANNAMALAI Vs. LALEETH AUTO CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was an advertisement dated 10th July, 1994 for appointment of dealers for the sale of Sooraj Diesel-motorcycle and Sitara Diesel Three wheeler, the advertisement having made by the Ist Opposite Party. The Complainant, in this connection, met the Ist Opposite Party and offered his willingness to be a dealer and the Ist Opposite Party appointed him as dealer. The Complainant deposited with the Ist Opposite Party a sum of Rs.30,000/- as security deposit and another sum of Rs.1,10,000/- as the cost of spare parts for the supply of the vehicle both totalling to Rs.1,40,000/-. The Complainant made preparations for having a showroom. Then as per the directions of the Ist Opposite Party the Complainant approached the Regional Transport Authority for obtaining Trade Certificate and for that he gave an application with a sum of Rs.125/-. The Regional Transport Authority by a letter informed the Ist Opposite Party that the Appointment Order of the Complainant by the manufacturer viz. , the 2nd Opposite Party, must be produced for necessary registration, and a copy of that letter was addressed to the Complainant. The Complainant met the Ist Opposite Party in this regard but the latter told him that he has not received any such letter from the Regional Transport Authority. In spite of several requests by the Complainant the Ist Opposite Party did not get the appointment letter from the 2nd Opposite Party. Therefore, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the Complainant for Trade Certificate. Hence the purpose for which the amount was deposited with the Ist Opposite Party was defeated. The 2nd Opposite Party also had not issued to the Complainant any Appointment Order in spite of payment made by the Complainant. Hence the Complainant could not start the business which he wanted to have for his self-employment. The Complainant wanted the Ist and 2nd Opposite Party to refund the amount by his letter dated 20.12.94 but it was in vain. The Ist Opposite Party in spite of his knowing that he himself cannot appoint the Complainant as a dealer and that the Competent Authority is the 2nd Opposite Party, made publications in the Press and collected Rs.1,40,000/- from the Complainant. This act of the 1st Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice. The 2nd Opposite Party is had-in-glove with the Ist Opposite Party and both of them have cheated the Complainant. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- given by the Complainant to the Ist Opposite Party with interest thereon. The Complainant has claimed several other amounts on different grounds all, including the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- totalling to Rs.5,73,094.45.

(2.) The Ist Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The Complainant was appointed as a dealer by this Opposite Party by its letter dated 26.9.94. The Complainant wrote to this Opposite Party a letter dated 12.12.94 requesting them to produce before the Regional Transport Authority a copy of the Distributorship Appointment Order issued by the manufacturer, i. e. , the Ist Opposite Party for the grant of Trade Certificate. This Opposite Party met the Regional Transport Authority and showed him the entire papers relevant for the purpose. But within eight days i. e. , on 20.12.94 the Complainant wrote to this Opposite Party expressing his inability to start the business due to unavoidable circumstances and asking for refund of the deposit amount. Again, by his letter dated 22.12.94 the Complainant insisted refund of the said amount. This Opposite Party by a letter dated 2.2.95 apprised the Complainant on the circumstances under which the Complainant has caused great hardship all of a sudden by giving up the dealership. The Complainant without understanding the intricacies of the situation has unnecessarily filed this complaint. This Opposite Party has not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The 2nd Opposite Party contended in their written version that it had nothing to do with the transaction between the Complainant and the Ist Opposite Party and this Opposite Party has been unnecessarily dragged. This Opposite Party has not received any amount from the Complainant through the Ist Opposite Party. The Complainant was appointed as a dealer by the Ist Opposite Party and he obtained the dealership to purchase vehicles from the Ist Opposite Party and for further re-sale to various customers. Therefore, he is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, as far as this Opposite Party is concerned, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.