ORDER
(Passed this on 22nd September, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This complaint is against Eros Hyundai Motors for their failure to give exchange value of old car to the complainant.
02. Opposite Party 2 is a Hyundai car manufacturer company and Opposite Party 1 is a car dealer. The O.P. had assured the complainant that if he purchased I-20 Magna car on exchange of his old Maruti-800 car, he would get discount of Rs.20,000/- and the company would pay for insurance of a new car. Accordingly he purchased I-20 car manufactured by the O.P.2 from O.P. 1 on 31.12.2012 for Rs. 5,39,173/- in exchange of his old car. The old car has been transferred to other owner on 22.1.2013. The O.P. paid for insurance of the new car but did not pay the exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/-. Hence he has prayed for the said amount along with compensation and cost.
03. OP1 filed reply at Ex.7 and admitted that as per company scheme the company was offering insurance and exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/- on old vehicle subject to terms and conditions. The scheme was valid up to 31. 12. 2012. The OP further offered free accessories worth Rs. 5000/-. Accordingly after getting full understanding of the scheme he placed the order. On that date the ex-show room price of the car was Rs. 5,39,173/- excluding tax @ 12.5% and other levies and charges towards registration of the vehicle. He paid Rs. 5000 to OP1 on 30. 12. 2012. Thereafter on 14. 1. 2013 he paid Rs. 2,43,983/- and then his financier disbursed the amount of Rs. 3,47,375/- to the O.P.1. But total sale consideration fell short by Rs. 2626/-, which was paid by him on 15.1. 2013. Thus sale transaction was completed on15. 1. 2013. The O.P.1 provided insurance for 1 year. It is denied that the complainant offered to
sell his old car to O.P.1 to avail benefit of Rs.20,000/-. It is also denied that entire sale consideration of Rs. 5,39,173 was paid on 31. 12. 2102. It is denied that he sold his old car to OP1 and it has been transferred to other owner. He did not comply the terms and conditions of exchange bonus by not filling the Form and furnishing mandatory documents within 110 days of the invoice confirmation date. Thus the exchange offer became void due to lapse of time. Thus it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
04. OP2 failed to file reply and so proceeded without its Written Statement.
05. Heard learned counsel for the complainant and for the OP1. Perused documents. After due consideration of facts and submission in the light of documents we record our findings for the reasons given below
FINDINGS AND REASONS
06. The scheme of exchange bonus was floated by OP2. As per the Exchange Discount it was mandatory for the complainant to submit all necessary documents within 110 days of invoice confirmation date to avail exchange bonus. However the complainant did not comply the requirement despite reminder letter dt/ 20. 7. 2013. There is nothing to show that the complainant made compliance as per the terms. There is no
evidence in support of his contention that the OP had agreed to purchase his old car and promised to adjust Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant in his notes of argument has admitted that he was apprised of the scheme of exchange offered by the manufacturer and it was valid up to the Invoice date 31. 12. 2012. Though he states that he complied the requirements, there is nothing on record to support it.
07. The complainant has stated that he paid entire amount on 31. 12. 2012. But he has not produced receipt of the same. The OP has denied it and further stated that on 30.12.2012 he paid Rs. 5,000/- by cheque dt/ 31. 12. 2012 as booking amount. Then on 14.1.2013 he paid Rs. 2,43 983/- by cheque and then his financer HDFC Bank disbursed remaining amount Rs. 3,47,375/-. But still the amount fell short by Rs. 2,625/- which was paid on 15.1. 2013. To this particular statement of the OP there is no denial from the complainant in rejoinder. In view of this, the compliance was, in fact, done subsequent to date 31. 12. 2012. As per the scheme the complainant, in order to avail exchange benefit, was required to submit sale documents of his old car to the OP within 110 days from 31.12.2012. But he failed to submit the documents within time. The OP had reminded him by letter dt/ 20. 7. 2013 that even after lapse of deadline it did not receive valid documents from him. Thus on failure on his own part the complainant now cannot blame the OP. He could not prove that he has fulfilled his part
within due time. There is no doubt that he sold his car to third person. But he furnished all documents to the OP is not proved. Except his oral version there is nothing on record to support this fact. Hence, we do not see merits in the complaint.
08. For the reasons stated above the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(01) The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
(02) Copy of judgment be provided free of cost to both the
parties .
