SHABINA MOTORS Vs. HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.