STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.119 of 2010)

Charisma Gold Wheels (P). Ltd through its Managing Director.

……Appellant

                           V E R S U S

1.                 Ashwani Sharma s/o late Sh. Satpal Sharma r/o 3025/1, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

2.                 M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., DLF, 3rd Floor, Tower-B, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh through Mr. Lokash Bhatia

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent No.1

                   Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.2.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- since 24.11.2008 (one month after the papers were submitted) till 11.2.2010 (when they submitted the cheque in the Forum).  The OPs were also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1,100/- for adopting an unfair trade practice and unnecessarily delaying the payment of the exchange bonus and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  The OPs were further directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which they were made liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 27.10.2009, till the payment was actually made to the complainant.

2.                           The OPs announced an exchange offer, for sale promotion of their cars.  According to this exchange offer, they were to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the customer on purchase of  a new car after selling the old car.  Being attracted by the advertisement/offer, the complainant purchased a new Hyundai i10 car from OP-2 on 26.7.2008.  In order to get the benefit of the scheme, he sold his old Maruti car to Sh. Nirmaljit Singh in August 2008. On 24.10.2008 after getting the RC transferred, in the name of Sh. Nirmaljit Singh, he applied for refund of Rs.10,000/- and also submitted the photocopies of the RC upon which the OPs assured him that he would get the refund soon, but they did not do so, despite the fact that they were approaching them a number of times.  The complainant received a letter dated 22.8.2009, whereby his claim was rejected, on the ground, that the transferred RC was 30 days before the invoice date.  On the advice of OP-2, the complainant approached OP-1 for the payment of Rs.10,000/-, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act only) was filed.

3.                           OP-1 did not appear, despite service, and was proceeded against exparte.

4.                           OP-2, in its reply, admitted that the exchange policy/scheme was floated by OP-1.  It was stated that OP-1 rejected the claim of the complainant on technical grounds that the transferred RC was 30 days earlier to the invoice date.  It was further stated that OP-2 had no role, whatsoever, to play. It was further stated that OP-2 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged in unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 

5.                           After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for   OP-2 and on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum accepted the complaint in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the OP-2/appellant.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.

8.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the claim of the complainant, was approved by M/s Hyundai Motors, respondent No.2, and a cheque dated 4.2.2010 of Rs.10,000/- was handed over to the complainant on 11.2.2010.  It was further submitted that the appellant was not at all at fault as the entire scheme was of Hyundai Motors, the manufacturers of the vehicle, in question.  It was further submitted that, as such, the District Forum was wrong in accepting the complaint.  It was further submitted that the order, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/ respondent submitted that the complaint was filed on 27.10.2009 and cheque of Rs.10,000/- was handed over to the complainant on 11.2.2010, though he had already submitted the papers to the OPs, but they, with malafide intention, rejected his claim.  He further submitted that the complainant was harassed.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the OPs announced an exchange offer for sale promotion of their cars.  According to this exchange offer, they were to refund an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the customer, on purchase of a new car, after selling his old car.  Annexure C-8 contained the guidelines of exchange offer.  Attracted by such an exchange offer, the complainant purchased a new Hyundai i10 car from OP-2 on 26.7.2008.  There was, therefore, a privity of contract between the complainant and OP-2.  In order to get the benefit of exchange offer, he sold his old Maruti car to Nirmaljit Singh in August 2008 and got transferred the RC on 24.10.2008 in his favour.  As is evident Annexure C-3, the invoice is dated 26.7.2008.  In these circumstances, there was no question of transfer of the RC of the old vehicle, in favour of Nirmaljit Singh, thirty days before the invoice dated 26.7.2008.  As per the guidelines (Annexure C-8), with a view to claim bonus, the old car should have been transferred by the purchaser within 105 days of the purchase of new car. It was, thus, clearly established that the exchange offer of the complainant was illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the OPs vide Annexure C-7, on a non-existent and flimsy ground.  The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that by rejecting the claim of exchange offer of the complainant, by the OPs, on non existent and flimsy grounds, they indulged into unfair trade practice.  The mere fact that the cheque of exchange offer was paid to the complainant on 11.2.2010, during the pendency of the complaint, did not absolve the OPs of their liability of compensating the complainant for the harassment caused by them to him, as also for indulging into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right in holding that since the amount was withheld by the OPs illegally and improperly, they were also liable to pay interest.  The order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the inference of this Commission.

11.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

12.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd May 2011.                                                                         

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER