BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                              :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                  :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                           :         MEMBER

                                 C.C.No : 392/2010       filed on 09/12/2010

                                              Dated: 17..12..2013

Complainant:

Padmnabhan, Gomathi Nivas, K.P. 11/572, Pipeline Road, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram.

          (By Adv. Rajneesh M.M)

Opposite  parties:

1. Hilton Hyundai Company, A-30 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
2. Sales Officer, Hilton Hyundai Company, TC 35/58-6, Zion, NH Hy-pass Road, Eanchakkal, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 008.

             (By Adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai)         

This O.P having been heard on 04..12..2013, the Forum on 17..12..2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT.R. SATHI : MEMBER:

          The case of the complainant is that he approached the 2^nd opposite party and booked a Santro G.L car by exchanging complainant’s Maruthi Omni 2001 car and the opposite party offered exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- for the exchange of old car. Thus the complainant took delivery of Saantro G.L car from Hilton Hyundai Company on 25/10/2008, but no exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- was given to the complainant even after repeated demands. The complainant also sent several letters to the opposite party and he sent Advocate notice to the opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party refused the notice and 2^nd opposite party accepted it but never cared to pay the exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/-. The act of the opposite parties in not giving the exchange offer amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- and to pay interst @ 16% from date on which the complainant took delivery of the car on 25/10/2008.

          2. The opposite parties accepted notice from the Forum but did not file any version or challenge the allegations levelled against them and hence the opposite parties remain exparte and an exparte order has been passed. Later the 2^nd opposite party filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the matter was remanded. The 2^nd opposite party filed version and the 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

          3. The 2^nd opposite party filed version stating that Hilton Motors, Trivandrum is a sole proprietory concern who is a dealer of Hyundai Motors company Ltd in the trade name Hilton Hyundai. The exchange offer is promised by the manufacturer and not by this opposite party. The manufacturer has offered the exchange offer on specific terms which is clearly known to the complainant and is stated in the order booking form dated 23/09/2008 and statement of accounts dated 25/10/2008. The complainant has to prove his eligibility of exchange offer as well as compliance of such terms and conditions and hence the complainant is not eligible for any offer and hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

          4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P13. Complainant was also examined as PW1. The 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit and marked Ext. D1 through the complainant and 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1.

          5. The issues that arise for consideration are:

          (i) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

          6. Points (i) & (ii)  The order booking form issued by the 2^nd opposite party, which has been marked as Ext. P1 reveals that the complainant had booked one Santro G.L car. The complainant pleads that in order to attract the customers the opposite parties had offered exchange offer to the customer’s old car for buying Hyundai cars and accordingly complainant had purchased the Santro car by exchanging his old Maruti Omni car and the 2^nd opposite party had offered an exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- which has not been paid yet. As per Ext. P1, the order booking form, certain conditions have been printed regarding eligibility for exchange bonus. While cross examination complainant deposed as thus: “exchange offer കിട്ടണമെങ്കി ല്‍ വൃവസ്ഥക ള്‍ ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് അറിയാമോ (Q) അറിയില്ല (A) നിങ്ങ ള്‍ exchange offer അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള കാരൃങ്ങ ള്‍ നിശ്ചിതസമയത്ത് ചെയ്യാത്തതുകൊണ്ടാണ് exchange offer കിട്ടാത്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (Q) വൃവസ്ഥക ല്‍ എനിക്കറിയില്ല. (A). Moreover opposite party produced Ext. D1 which was marked through the complainant and Ext. P8 produced by the complainant are same documents and it is stated in the place of exchange offer as Nil and corporate offer also as Nil. The customer’s signature was also there in Ext. D1. In the above circumstance, considering the overall facts, documents and oral evidence, this Forum finds that the complainant has failed in proving his complaint and the 2^nd opposite party contradict the allegations levelled against the opposite parties through documents. Accordingly it is found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and so the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs sought for. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order for costs.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of December 2013.

Sd/- R. SATHI                           :         MEMBER

Sd/-G. SIVAPRASAD              :         PRESIDENT

Ad.                                    Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR                  :         MEMBER

C.C.No: 392/2010

APPENDIX

I.   Complainant’s documents:

P1    :  Order booking form dated 23/09/2008 issued by opposite     party

         P2    :  Copy of price list issued by opposite party

         P3    :  Copy of letter dated 05/03/2010 issued by K.B.

   Pandarathil to opposite party

         P4    :  Copy of advocate notice dated 27/03/2010

         P5    :  Letter returned with acknowledgement

         P6    :  Acknowledgement card

         P7    :  Copy of order dated 09/10/2010 of the Lok Adalath

   District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvananthapuram

         P8    :  Statement of Accounts issued by opposite party

         P9    :  Vehicle sale bill issued by opposite party for an amount

           of Rs.3,37,070/-

         P10  :  Receipt dated 24/09/2008 No.453 for an amount of Rs.

   1,000/- issued by opposite party

P11  :  Receipt dated 27/09/2008 No:472 for Rs. 35,000/- issued by    opposite party

P12  :  Receipt dated 23/10/2008 No. 530 for Rs. 3,13,000/- issued by opposite party

P13  :  Delivery note dated 29/09/2008 issued by Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

II. Complainant’s witness:

         PW1 :       Padmnabhan

III. Opposite parties’ documents:

         D1    :  Statement of Accounts issued by opposite parties

IV. Opposite parties’ witness:

         DW1         :       Saji Oomman

                                                                                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT

     ad