BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No : 1330 of 2009

Date  of  Institution   :    17.09.2009

                                       Date  of    Decision   :    11.02.2010

Dr.M.L.Bansal, R/o H.No.20-A, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd., Plot No.7, Indl. Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

2]       M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., DLF 3^rd Floor, Tower-B, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:-        Ms. Vidhi Gupta (Manager Planning) Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

                                                          ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

Argued by:          Complainant in person.

                             Sh.Gurinderjit Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

                             OP No.2 exparte.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT.

                   In precise, the complainant purchased one Santro Car from OP for Rs.3,64,000/- and got it registered vide Ann.-1.  It is averred that as per the offer of OP on purchase of a new Hyundai Car, an exchange benefit of Rs.10,000/- was to be given, the complainant sold his old car make Maruti Zen to one Gurjinder Singh, which was transferred in his name vide Ann.C-2. Accordingly, the complainant visited OP No.1 and completed all the formalities for getting the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- but they failed to do the needful inspite of his several requests as well as personal visits.  Hence this compliant alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service  due to which he had to suffer a lot.

2]                OP No.1 filed reply and  admitted the factual matrix of the case. It is also admitted that the complainant was entitled for exchange bonus.  However, it is stated that the case of the complainant was firstly rejected on 6.10.2008 as the copy of the transferred R.C. was not attached.  His claim was again rejected on 15.6.2008 for the same reason of transferred R.C. not deposited along with other sets of documents.  However, on 22.6.2009 when the transferred R.C. was received from the complainant, his case of refund was submitted, which was approved on 9.9.2009 and accordingly a cheque of Rs.10,000/- dated 14.9.2009 issued in favour of the complainant drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh was issued.  The said cheque was also sent to the residence of complainant but he refused to accept it.  Denying any deficiency on their part, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]                OP No.2 did not turn up despite having been duly served with the notice and therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

4]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]                We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP No.1 and have also perused the record.

6]                The contention the OP is that the claim for exchange bonus was first rejected by the Head Office on 6.10.2008 and thereafter due to the reason that the copy of the transferred R.C. was not attached with the claim form.  This excuse is totally unfounded and false.  Annexure-1 is the photocopy of the R.C. of the transferred vehicle which alongwith other papers was handed over to Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd., (OP-1) on 5.05.2008.  There is acknowledgment of the official receiving the said papers by the office of OP-1.  The R.C. had been issued on 17.04.2008 and it therefore cannot be said if the copy thereof could not have been delivered to the OP-1 till 5.05.2008. If the copy of the R.C. was not sent to OP-2, it was the fault of OP-1 and not of the complainant.  However, when the complainant did not receive the bonus, he again approached the OP-1 and delivered another copy of the R.C.  Annexure -4 is the acknowledgment in this respect showing that complete set of papers were received by OP-1 on 3.01.2009.  However, again OP-1 did not send the complete papers to OP-2 for paying the exchange bonus and the claim submitted by the complainant was again rejected on 15.06.2009.  It was rejected due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.  When the complainant again contacted them they sent the complete papers and subsequently and as mentioned in para number 6 of the reply, the exchange bonus was sanctioned.  The delay therefore occurred due to the fault of OP-1.

7]                It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP-1 that the cheque dated 14.09.2009 for the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was sent to the complainant by post at his residence but the respondent refused to accept it. This has been denied by the complainant.  The OPs have not placed on file the cheque which is alleged to have been prepared on 14.09.2009.  They have not produced the envelope in which the said cheque was sent.  The endorsement made thereon by the complainant refusing to accept the cheque also has not been produced.  The OP has also not produced the affidavit of the representative, who is alleged to have gone to the house of the complainant and tendered the cheque, to prove if the complainant refused to accept the same.  It is therefore clear that firstly OP-1 did not send the complete papers to OP-2 for claiming the bonus and now false assertions are being made in the reply to justify their inaction.  It is argued by the complainant that this is not the only case where the consumers are being harassed by OP-1 but today itself there is another case titled ‘Ashwni Sharma vs. Hyundai Motors and Charisma Goldwheels Ltd.,’ in which also the exchange bonus was not paid and the purchaser had to file the complaint.  This is an unfair trade policy adopted by the OPs whereby they give assertions of giving the exchange bonus and thereafter delay the payment thereof and harass the consumers.

8]                In the present case the payment of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus was made on 9.02.2010.  The amount was retained by OP-2 unnecessarily and no interest as damages has been paid. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP-2 is directed to pay interest @9% p.a. on the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- since 5.06.08 (one month after the papers were submitted vide Annexure-1) till 9.02.2010.  The OP-1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1100/- for not sending the complete papers to OP-2 and giving false information regarding the non receipt of the R.C. and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  The above said amount shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.09.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

                    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.  The file be consigned.