MODERN MOTORS Vs. LML LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Neena Bansal, proprietress of Modern Motors has made a complaint alleging that the respondent, LML Limited has stopped supplies of its scooters to the applicant/complainant which has been its wholesale dealer since 1986. Her grievance is that although advance payment amounting to Rs.81,45,500/- from 39 consumers for its brand of Trendy Scooter has been received, delivery cannot be given as the respondent has stopped supplies of its scooters to the applicant/ complainant. It has also been specifically complained that Shri Harish Kanodia, a consumer has not been able to get delivery of the scooter booked by him with the applicant/complainant even though he made an advance payment of Rs.16,000/- merely because the respondent has not been supplying its scooters to the applicant/complainant.

(2.) The authorised representative of the applicant/complainant was given a hearing on the question of maintainability of the present complaint. Even though there are two complainants one of whom is Shri Harish Kanodia who is desirous of buying the respondent's scooter and made the booking with Modern Motors, wholesale dealer of the respondent's scooters, the main complainant is Ms. Neena Bansal, the proprietress of Modern Motors whose dealership has been terminated and a new dealer has been appointed instead. It is not Shri Kanodia's case that the respondent's scooter is not available as a result of the termination of dealership of Modern Motors. In fact, it has been mentioned in the complaint that another dealer has been appointed to cater to the demand for the respondent's scooters in that area and Shri Kanodia can buy a scooter from that dealer, if he so wishes. It seems that Shri Kanodia's name has been added merely to overcome the hurdle of maintainability of the complaint. As the main complainant is admittedly a trader and not a consumer, this complaint is not maintainable in view of the binding ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ballarpur Industries V/s. Director General,1998 64 CompCas 88, wherein it has been held that the definition of 'consumer' for the purposes or the MRTP Act, 1969 will be the same as contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . As the main complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is admittedly a dealer of LML Limited, its complaint is, therefore, not maintainable. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected summarily as not maintainable.