KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO. 50/14

JUDGMENT DATED:30.08.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

K.G. Natarajan,

Retired Professor,                         

Mayooram, T.C.3/2151,                                                     : APPELLANT

LIC Lane, Thazhuthala Village,

Pattom, TVPM.

(By Adv: Sri. S.Reghukumar)

            Vs.

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

South Regional Office,

N.P.54, Developed Plot,

Ekkadithangal Thiru-vika,

Industrial Estate,

Chennai-600 032.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

1. Popular Motor Private Limited,

Near Karamana Bridge,

Neeramankara, Kaimanam.P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram-40.

(R2 by Adv: Sri.B.Jayasankar)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.No.170/09  on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 15, 2013 dismissing the complaint.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant purchased a new Santro GLS Car from the 2^nd opposite party on November 21, 2007 by exchanging his old Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.KL.05-K-6086.  The said exchange was done by the complainant through the Exchange Bonus Scheme offered by the second opposite party.  Second opposite party offered Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus.  Complainant transferred his old vehicle through sales executive by name Mr.Sreejith of the second opposite party.  All the documents were given to the said Sreejith.  On December 15, 2007 Sreejith collected the copy of the RC book of the new car from the complainant.  But thereafter second opposite party did not give the exchange bonus to the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming the said amount.

3.  First opposite party is the Hundai Motors India Limited, Chennai and second opposite party is M/s Popular Motors Private Limited, Trivandrum who is the agent of the first opposite party.  The second opposite party in his version contended thus before the Forum.  For claiming exchange bonus the purchaser should have a motor car in his ownership, possession and use with registration in his favour for a minimum period of 6 months.  The old car should have been transferred within 30 days just before the date of purchase of the new car or within 105 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  The documents should have been submitted to the dealer within 120 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  As per the records it is seen that complainant did not submit the entire documents to the second opposite party within 120 days from the date of purchase of the new vehicle.  Photostat copies of all the pages of the registration book of the old car is not produced.  Therefore the manufacturer rejected the claim for the exchange bonus.  That being so complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on his side and second opposite party was examined as DW1 before the Forum.  The first opposite party remained absent.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.  Complainant has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard the counsel for the appellant and the complaint.  In this appeal also the first opposite party remained absent.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a new Santro GLS car from the second opposite party on November 21, 2007 by exchanging his old Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.KL-05-K-6086 and that opposite parties have promised him exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- which they did not give.  The specific case of the 2^nd respondent/second opposite party is that complainant did not submit full pages of the registration book of the old car within 120 days of the purchase of the new vehicle.  This is denied by the complainant.  He would say that he had submitted the entire documents to one Sreejith, Sales Executive of the second opposite party.

8.      The counsel for the 2^nd respondent would argue that the complainant should have examined the said Sreejith as a witness to prove his case.  There is no merit in the above contention.  The said Sreejith is admittedly an employee of the second opposite party.  Therefore the 2^nd respondent should have examined him as a witness and produced the documents submitted by the complainant to show that the said documents are incomplete which the second opposite party did not do.

9.      Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter sent by the second opposite party to the complainant dated, November 22, 2007 asking the complainant to produce the copy of RC book of the new vehicle, copy  of RC book of the old vehicle and transfer page of old RC book.  The counsel for the appellant admitted that they have received these documents but the copy of the RC book of the old vehicle was incomplete and by the time they sent the documents to the manufacturer the period of 120 days were over.  But there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the second opposite party to show that the documents produced by the complainant were incomplete.  Second opposite party did not produce those documents before the Forum to show that those were incomplete.  On the other hand DW1 the present Regional Manager of the second opposite party had no direct knowledge regarding the transaction.  It is clear from the above that the complainant produced the entire documents to the second opposite party in time, but they sent the same to the manufacturer only after the prescribed period of 120 days.  That being so, the finding of the Forum that complainant is not entitled to exchange bonus cannot be sustained.  It follows that and we hold that the complainant is entitled to exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-.  It follows that appeal has to be allowed setting aside the impugned order of the Forum.  Consequently the complaint has to be allowed.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside.  Complainant is found entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards the exchange bonus.  He is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.5000/-.  Before the Forum he is entitled to a cost of Rs.5000/- and in this appeal he is entitled to a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.