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

========

Complaint  Case No :  315 of 2010

Date of Institution :  12.05.2010

Date of  Decision   :  27.10.2010

Mrs. Satya Middha w/o Sh. K.K. Middha, R/o 601, E/13, Society No. 79, Sector 20, Panchkula (Haryana).

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]    Hyundai Motor India Ltd., A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.

[2]    Hyundai Motor India Limited, North Regional Office, DLF Tower-B, 3^rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Tech Park, Chandigarh – 160101.

[3]    M/s Charisma Goldwheels [P] Ltd., #7, Indl. Area, Ph-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                PRESIDING     MEMBER

                        DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA           MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.K.K.Middha, Husband/Auth.Repr. of Complainant.

 Sh. Ankush Kalia, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Vishal Gupta, Adv. for OP     

 No.1 & 2.

 Sh. N.P. Sharma, Adv. for OP No. 3.

PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

                Shorn of all unnecessary details, suffice it to mention here that this complaint has arisen on account of non-release of exchange bonus in favour of the Complainant,  despite repeated requests.  It was alleged Complainant had purchased a brand new i10 Era on 03.4.2009 from OP No.3 and further, with a view to avail the exchange bonus, as committed at the time of purchase of the new vehicle, she also sold her old Maruti Car [HR-24-D-6162] to one Mr. Sukhwinder Singh. Her contention was that the OPs were sitting over her papers and every now and then, assured her that her claim for exchange bonus would come shortly, but all this turned out to be a mere farce. However, protracted correspondences have also been exchanged between them, but to no avail. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.                OP No.1 & 2 in their joint reply admitted the factual aspects of the case. It was pleaded that exchange bonus and other benefits were subject to certain terms and conditions and for getting the same, Complainant had to comply and fulfill all the required terms & conditions of the scheme. The claim of the Complainant for exchange bonus was rejected as she transferred her old car after more than 125 days of purchase of new car which was beyond the stipulated time period as per exchange claim policy. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP No.3 in their separate written reply pleaded that the scheme in question of offering an exchange bonus, on the purchase of a brand new Hyundai vehicle, was a creation of the Manufacturer – OP No.1 and the OP No.3 had no direct or indirect role in the said scheme save for acting as a collector of the requisite documents, which were sent to the manufacturer – OP No.1, from the Complainant/consumer. The case of the Complainant, along with the requisite documents for the release of exchange bonus, was taken up with the OP No.1, several times, followed by reminders, but OP No. 1 did not release the said bonus to the Complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the Complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                We have heard the authorized representative of the Complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

7.                The main contention of the complainant is with regard to the non payment of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- by the OPs, which was promised by them to be paid within three months. In support of his contentions, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-10, the copy of the booking form which shows that the complainant after purchasing the said car was entitled for exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-.  The copy of retail invoice Annexure C-1 (Colly.) shows that the complainant on 03.04.2009 paid Rs.3,64,901/- to OP-3 towards the cost of the new ERA 1.1.E3 car.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the letter dated 2.06.2009 alongwith which the complainant had sent Form 28 (Annexure C-4) and Certificate of Registration (Annexure C-5) to OP-3 for getting the NOC issued by Registration Authority, SIRSA(Haryana). Annexure C-6 dated 1.07.2009 is the copy of the letter sent  by the complainant to OP-3, stating that he had not received the payment of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- despite sending all the relevant papers/documents like RC of old car(Annexure C-7), Ration card (Annexure C-8), PAN card (Annexure C-9), Booking form for exchange bonus (Annexure C-10), RC of new car (Annexure C-11), RC of old car transferred in the name of Sukhwinder Singh,(Annexure C-12). Annexure C-13 to Annexure C-15 are the copies of the letters written by the complainant to OPs for the period from 18.8.2009 to 13.10.2009, requesting them for payment of the exchange bonus.

8.                On the other hand the OP-1 and OP-2 contended that the complainant was required to submit clear and unambiguous copy of the transferred Registration Certificate of the old car within 105 days but the date of transfer in the registration certificate of the old car was not clear and even the claim disbursement form filed by the complainant had no date of transfer of old car in the column where the date of transfer was required to be filled therefore, the claim of exchange bonus was rightfully rejected.

9.                It has been admitted by OP-3 in para no. 2 of its reply that all the required documents which would have ensured that the exchange bonus was paid on time were sent to OP-1 and OP-2 and also so many reminder on that account were also sent but they did not release the exchange bonus and however on 20.07.2010 , the OP-1 and OP-2 vide their email, informed them that the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards exchange bonus was duly credited to the their account for its payment to the complainant. It shows that the documents were sent by the complainant to OP-3 and after its verification it was further sent to OP-1 and OP-2 for releasing the payment of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant but as per the version of OP-1 and OP-2, it was rejected on ground that the date of transfer in the registration certificate of the old car was not clear and etc. etc. 

10.              In our view when the documents were handed over by the complainant to OP-3, it was their duty to check the documents and send it to OP-1 and OP-2 at the earliest or if there was any deficiency in that, the same should have been intimated to the complainant or must have returned back to clear the deficiency which was not done by OP-3, rather the documents were forwarded to OP-1 and OP-2, which clearly shows that there was no deficiency in the documents which were handed over to OP-3 by the complainant and were further forwarded to OP-1 and OP-2 for payment of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- but they did not.

11.              It has also been argued by ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 that the complainant was required to transfer her old car within 105 days of purchase of the new car and submitted clear and unambiguous copy of the transferred Registration Certificate of the old car, with the concerned selling dealer.  A number of similar complaints have been received by this Forum, wherein also the OP-1 and OP-2 have been taking this false ground just to justify their inaction of not giving exchange bonus to their customers by way of false grounds at the later stage that the vehicle was to be transferred in favour of a third party within the period of 105 days. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the case the exchange bonus claim of Rs.15,000/- was received by the complainant on 13.10.2010 vide cheque no.502310 dated 31.07.2010 subject to the decision of the case, which clearly shows that the OPs were at fault and have unnecessary retained the amount of exchange bonus and when they came to know about their mistake, they released the amount of exchange bonus to the complainant.

12.              In the present case t­he payment of Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus was made on 13.10.2010 vide cheque no.502310 dated 31.07.2010  and that too during the pendency of the present complaint when the case was fixed for arguments, which clearly indicates that the amount was retained by OPs unnecessarily and no interest as damages has been paid.  It appears that the OPs came into action only after filing the present complaint by the complainant when they realized that they were at fault.  Hence, the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service and were adopting unfair trade practice in holding the amount of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- on baseless grounds causing physical and mental harassment to the complainant.

13.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay interest @9% p.a. on the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- since 13.06.2009 (one month after the date of getting the RC transferred) till 13.10.2010 (when they submitted the cheque in this Forum).  The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,500/- for adopting an unfair trade practice and unnecessarily delaying the payment of the exchange bonus 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. 12.05.2010, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

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