By Sri.K.Gheevarghese, President :

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complainant has exchanged the old vehicle (Maruti Omni Van 2003 model) having registration No. KL/B 5583 which is registered in R T O, Wayanad with Hyundai Santro XL. Which was done influenced by offer of the 2^nd Opposite Party that the Complainant would be getting Rs.10,000/- as a special scheme of the Opposite Parties offer. The scheme envisaged according to 2^nd Opposite Party that the amount will be paid directly to the Complainant. The complainant was not given the benefit of the scheme and the Opposite Parties were not ready to comply with the terms of ofference. The non disbursement of the amount offered for the exchange of vehicle is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant is entitled for the amount offered by the Opposite Parties with an interest at the rate of 18% from 16.12.2006. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party is declared exparte and 2^nd Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The version of the 2^nd Opposite Party as the dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party who is the Manufacturer of the Hyundai Motor Car. The entire transaction of exchange was effected in Calicut. The complaint filed is not having territorial jurisdiction and it is to be dismissed. The 2^nd Opposite Party has forwarded all the documents to Hyundai Motor India Ltd in Maruti 2007. The discount of the cash in the exchange deal is to be sanctioned by the company. The 2^nd Opposite Party complied all formalities required for keeping the offer and informed the 1^st Opposite Party in time. There is no latches on the part of the Complainant delivering the copies of the registration certificate of the Car before transferring it in his name R.C of the old car and R.C of the new car along with proof of address etc within the time stipulated. The claim of the exchange bonus has to be submitted within the limit of 16 days from the date of sale. A letter was also sent to the Complainant on 12.01.2007 informing the documents to be produced, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief hence it is to be dismissed.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether the complaint is having territorial jurisdiction?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The 2^nd Opposite Party contended that entire transaction was carried out at Calicut and the complaint itself is not having any jurisdiction to be filed in this Forum. The sum of the complaint is that the 2^nd Opposite Party approach the Complainant with an offer that if the vehicle is exchanged with a new Hyundai Santro XL vehicle they will getting the vehicle Rs.10,000/-. The Offer is made from Kalpetta and the vehicle is registered at in the name of the Complainant from RTO, Wayanad. The Opposite Parties carryout business within Wayanad and it is found that the complaint is having jurisdiction to be filed in this Forum.

5. Point No.2:- The Complainant filed affidavit swearing the allegation and tendered oral testimony Ext.A1 to A4 are marked for the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party, the Manufacturer, is declared exparte and the 2^nd Opposite Party who is the dealer of the manufacturing company has not rendered any testimony and no documents are filed in support of their contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the bonus offer made by the manufacturing company informed by the dealer of Rs.10,000/- towards the exchange of old vehicle with the new one is not kept up. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not any contention that the company had not made any such offer in the exchange of new vehicle with the old one. According to the 2^nd Opposite Party the documents which are required for making the offer absolute were sent to the concerned office in time. The offer was made by the company. The responsibilty vests upon the 1^st Opposite Party to disburse the amount offered. If any stipulation is there regarding the limit of time or anything required in pursuance of the offer the Opposite Parties are liable to establish that contention. The manufacturer of the vehicle who is declared exparte in this case. The bonus offer made is admitted by the dealer. The non payment of the bonus amount declared in the exchange of the old vehicle when the new one is absolutely a deficiency in service and the point No.2 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.3:- It is admitted that the sum of Rs.10,000/- would be given as a special scheme which is found not maintained by the Offerer. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the dealer, the responsibility on the part of the dealer and manufacturer in making the offer and performance of the same is indivisible. The Complainant disposed that on the very same day of purchasing Hyundai Santro vehicle the old and used Maruthi Van of the Complainant was entrusted to the Opposite Party along with necessary papers. The Complainant had done his role abide by the scheme. The claim of the Complainant to pay the bonus amount Rs.10,000/- with interest from the date 16.12.2006 cannot be considered, it is found that hypothecation of the vehicle was not cleared on 23.1.2007. The Complainant has not produced any document to show that when the transaction became absolute and cleared the liability. Though the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 16.12.2006 the date of registration was on 22.12.2006, the transaction of exchange cannot became absolute if the hypothecation subsists. The Complainant has not produced any document to establish his case that when the hypothecation liability became free. As a result the prayer of the Complainant for the interest for the bonus amount from the date of delivery of the vehicle cannot be considered. Any how the complainant is to be given by the Opposite Parties the bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-, the offered amount as per the scheme with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing this complaint.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed

to give the Complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) the bonus offer with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and towards cost Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only). The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay this amount to the Complainant within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-
 

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the complainant :

PW1. Sasikumar Complainant

Witness for the Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Copy of R.C Book of KL-12/C 7221 Hyundai Santro XL.

A2. Copy of registered lawyer notice with postal receipt

and acknowledgement card. dt. 30.04.08

A3. Copy of letter

A4. Copy of the R.C old Omni Van.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties :

Nil.