Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.Anand Gawand-Advocate h/f.Mr.A.V.Patwardhan-Advocate for the appellant and respondent no.1 in person. 

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint no.417/2007 decided on 06/11/2008.  Present appellant is original opponent no.2.  Respondent no.1 is original complainant and respondent no.2 is original opponent no.1. 

This appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

This appeal takes an exception to an order which has been passed in consumer complaint no.417/2007, whereby appellant and respondent no.2 are directed to pay an amount of `31,620/-.  They are further directed to pay `5,000/- for mental agony and `1,000/- for cost of the litigation.  Appellant is a manufacturer of electric bike matrix super. We are told that the said production has failed in the market and, therefore, now the production has been stopped. Complainant /respondent no.1 has purchased the said vehicle from appellant and respondent no.2.  Respondent no.2 is a dealer of the said vehicle, while appellant is a manufacturer of the said vehicle. Said vehicle is an electric bike having capacity of less than 250 watts and, therefore, it is exempted under CMVR vide GSR 589(8) dated 16/9/2005.  Said vehicle does not require registration with the Motor vehicle authority also. It appears that it is represented that the said vehicle would run 100 k.ms on consumption of one unit electricity per use for charging the battery.  What is the speed of the said vehicle per hour is not disclosed anywhere and we are told by the parties that the said vehicle is not having speedo meter.  Therefore, simplicitor it follows that vehicle runs on battery charged by electricity and on consumption of one unit electricity for charging the battery of said vehicle it can be used for running of 100 k.ms.  But within what time 100 k.ms. distance will be crossed is/was not represented to the customers.  It appears that customer complainant purchased the said vehicle with an understanding that 100 k.ms. is the speed per hour. Therefore, complainant has made a grievance that when the vehicle was brought on road by complainant, vehicle was giving average of 50-55 kms. and not 100 kms. as represented.  Thereafter, complainant has made a grievance that the vehicle suffered from several drawbacks.  Mirror was damaged, so also seat was damaged. Parts of vehicle were easily condemnable and, therefore, spare parts were not available. Therefore, vehicle could not be used. Ultimately, complainant /respondent no.1 found that this vehicle is/was not road worthy and, therefore, complainant asked for the return of the price of the said vehicle, though in some of the prayers made in complaint, he claimed substitution of spare parts.  All these aspects have been considered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has passed an order against appellant and respondent no.2. 

What we find is that only ground which is raised by the appellant is that the appellant is not a manufacturer of the said vehicle and, therefore, order which has been passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in law.  In order to find out whether appellants are manufacturers of this vehicle or not there are several documents on record.  Users guide which is brought on record shows that M/s.R.K.Rim Pvt.Ltd. is a group of companies and appellant is one of the component company of the said group.  On users’ guide it has been stated that appellant’s address is the place where manufacture of electric bike matrix super takes place.  That means they are the manufacturer of the said vehicle. In support thereof one another booklet is produced on record, which has been published by M/s.R.K.Rim Pvt.Ltd. In the list of the companies name of the appellant has been shown as component company.  Therefore, even assuming that RK group of company is manufacturer of the said vehicle, appellant being a component company and having a workshop for manufacture of the said vehicle is equally manufacturer of the said vehicle. Ample material placed on record shows that it is the appellant, who has manufactured the said vehicle and, therefore, ground which has been raised by the Ld.counsel is without any substance.

Apart from these booklets it has been represented on the Website that the appellant is a manufacturer of the said vehicle.

It is to be noted that respondent no.2 though present before us, is making several grievances against the appellant.  Respondent no.2 may file separate proceeding as against appellant because dispute between manufacturer and dealer cannot be said to be a consumer dispute, which can be considered by this Commission. It is further to be noted that though order has been passed on 06/11/2008, respondent no.2 was aware of the said order but not challenged the said order. Said order has attained finality in view of section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against respondent no.2 and, therefore, what we find ultimately on hearing the parties is that there is no substance in appeal. Hence the order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal is hereby rejected. 

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.