Complainant Nasib Chand has filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that opposite parties may be directed to make payment of Rs.20,000/- to him as Exchange Bonus alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses in his favour on account of mental and physical harassment being suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that on the allurement of the opposite party no.3 he approached to the opposite party no.1 to enquire about the matter to exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/-. The opposite party no.1 told him that if he will purchase new Ford Figo Car and will submit the registration certificate of his earlier car and other particulars regarding the sale of his earlier vehicle, then the opposite parties would pay him the exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/-, since it is the scheme of the Headquarters of Figo situated at Tamilnadu. The opposite party no.4 is manufacturer of Fort Figo Cars. He in order to achieve this benefit of exchange bonus had sold his earlier Santro Car bearing Registration No.PB-06-H-0486 to Sh.Rahul Angurala son of Sh.Roop Lal, resident of Gurdaspur and thereafter purchased a new Ford Figo 1.2 Zxi-ICA Petrol Car from the opposite parties on 29.5.2013 for sum of Rs.4,09,126/- against invoice. At the time of purchase of the new vehicle he requested the opposite parties to adjust the amount of Rs.20,000/- as loyalty exchange amount in the final sum amount, but the opposite parties said that the said amount would not be adjusted as the same has been sent to him through cheque by the Head Office of the opposite parties no.1 to 3  and for that purpose the file is to be completed but till date the amount has not been received by him.  Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered mental, physical and monetary loss from the hands of the opposite parties. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed against the opposite parties alongwith special costs of Rs.10,000/- U/S 26 of the C.P.Act; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands  and suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and earlier also the complainant had filed the complaint against the opposite parties which was withdrawn by him in which the opposite parties have also filed their written statement and given reply that they had no role to play regarding the exchange bonus of the vehicle. Only the manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.4 gives the guidelines for exchange bonus for their vehicles, to whom they had not arrayed as a party in the previous complaint. In the present complaint also although they had arrayed them as a party but in the present case they had unnecessarily dragged the opposite parties. On merits, all averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Upon notice, opposite party no.4 appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and the same has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and defame the opposite party; the complainant has miserably failed to bring the present complaint within the ambit of Section 2 (1) © of the Act. Further the complainant has blatantly failed to raise any allegation against the opposite party and has failed to even address the critical aspects as outlined in section 2 (1) © of the Act. Even otherwise, the complaint does not disclose any manufacturing defects as envisaged in section 2 (1) (f) or any ‘deficiency in services’ as defined in section 2 (1) (g) of the Act against the opposite party. Therefore, considering the abovesaid objection, this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with appropriate pecuniary costs as envisaged in section 26 of the Act; the present complaint is not maintainable especially against opposite party no.4 and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground; the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and is misusing the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties as the complainant has impleaded opposite party no.4 in the array of parties even though no liability can be fastened upon them. On merits, all averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.         Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh Manager Ex.OP-1 to 3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to 3/2 and Ex.OP1 to 3/3 and closed the evidence.

7.       Counsel for the opposite party no.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg Ex.OP4/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-4/1 and Ex.OP-4/2 and closed the evidence.

8.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but judiciously drawn for ignoring to produce ‘requisite’ documents by the participating litigants, of course in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides. We find that the complainant had been the owner of Santro Model (Hyndui Make) Car with RC # PB06H0486 (Ex.C2) that he sold to one Rahul Anghmana (Ex.C3) and purchased one new Figo Model (Ford Make) from the opposite party no.2 Dealer (Ex.C1) through the opposite party1 Vendor at the alleged assurance (by the OP3 Sales Consultant with the OP1) of the availability of the applicable Loyalty Exchange Offer of Rs.20,000/- that somehow was finally refused prompting the present complaint. The opposite parties in their reply duly supported by their respective affidavits (Ex.OP1to3/I & Ex.OP4/A) and other documentary evidences (Ex.OP1to3/3 & Ex.OP4/2) have proved on record that the applicable Loyalty Exchange Offer Scheme (Discount of Rs.20,000/-) has been applicable only to those ‘purchasers’ of new Ford Cars who pre-owned ‘Ford’ Cars and ‘sold’ these Cars (in exchange) to the selling Ford Cars Dealer Vendors. On the other hand, the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support and prove his ‘bald’ assertion of the OP3’s verbal assurance of alleged applicability of the continuing Loyalty Exchange Offer Scheme [even at the face of ‘pre-owning’ a Non-Ford (different-make) Car and that too sold to the third-party purchaser (other than the vending Ford Dealer)] to the ‘freshly’ purchased Cars of the Ford Make. Thus, the present complaint is bereft of all statutory merit under the applicable adjudicatory Act.               

9.       In the light of the all above, we do not see any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President.                                                                                        

ANNOUNCED:                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 11, 2016                                                         Member.

*MK*