DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 327 of 20-07-2010

Decided on : 19-11-2010

Surinder Parkash Sharma aged about 45 years, S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma, R/o H. No. 17244, Street No. 2, Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Registered Office “ A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044, through its Chief Executive Officer

2. Raja Motors, Authorised Dealer Hundai Motors India Ltd., Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Managing Director

3. Mr. Brar, Marketing Manager, Raja Motors, Authorised Dealer, Hundai Motors India Ltd., Mansa Road, Bathinda.

4. Sukhwant Singh, Sales Executive, Raja Motors, Authorised Dealer Hundai Motors India Ltd., Mansa Road, Bathinda. ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. R K Bhukkal, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. K K Vinocha, counsel for the

opposite party Nos. 2 to 4.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant approached opposite party No. 2 for purchasing Santro Eco GLS white model car. The opposite party No. 4 informed the complainant that the said car is priced at Rs. 3,78,778/- and told him that if he would purchase this model of the car, he would be entitled to benefit of free accessories worth Rs. 5,000/- including matting, N/P, perfume, body cover Teflon coating, exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- against exchange of his old car, special offer of Rs. 4,000/- being corporate employee, free insurance and a gold coin. The complainant booked the car with the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 against payment of Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque 155287 on 4-11-2008 and transferred the car bearing Regn. No. PB60A-2765 to the opposite party No. 1 in exchange as agreed between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. On 10-11-2008, the complainant paid Rs. 68,778/- to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 through opposite party No. 4 and the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid by the financing institution State Bank of Patiala. At the time of payment, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 had informed the complainant that the benefits of exchange amount of Rs. 15,000/- and special offer of Rs. 4,000/- being corporate employee and gold coin would be given to him in few days time, on receipt of the same from the company i.e. opposite party No.1. The delivery of the above said car was given to the complainant by the opposite party on 10-11-2008 vide Delivery Challan No. 485 dated 10-11-2008 and at that time also, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 assured the complainant regarding extending of benefit of exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/-, special officer of Rs. 4,000/- for corporate employee and a gold coin in a few days time. The complainant has approached the opposite parties many times but few a days back, the opposite parties have refused to give any benefits to him. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite parties to give the benefits of exchange bonus, special corporate offer and gold coin besides compensation and cost.

2. Despite service of notice, the opposite party No. 1 did not put an appearance before this Forum, and as such, exparte proceedings are taken against it.

3. The opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have filed their joint written reply and have taken legal objection that there was no gold coin scheme at the time of purchasing the car by complainant. Hand-written Scheme written by Sukhwant Singh was produced by the complainant alongwith his complaint is forged and fabricated one. Words “Insurance” in scheme of i10 Car and Words “Quality/Gold Coin/Wheel Cup” is not in the hand writing of Sukhwant Singh i.e. opposite party No. 4. They have pleaded that to promote sale, gold coin scheme was launched by opposite party No. 2 i.e. dealer at his own level w.e.f. 1-12-2008 when there was no scheme of gold coin at the time of purchase of Car by complainant, then question of giving such a scheme does not arise at all. When the gold coin scheme was in operation w.e.f. 1-12-2008, the gold coin was handed over to eligible customer at the time of delivery of car itself. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of gold coin. Another objection of the opposite parties is regarding exchange claim. It has been pleaded that to promote sale this scheme was launched by opposite party No. 1 i.e. manufacturer with certain terms and conditions and on completion of documents within time frame i.e. within 2 months. On completion of documents, the complainant has to sign submission of claim Form and Annexure 2 Form/undertaking after proper filling it within time period of two months. The dealer concerned would sent these Forms accompanied by the required documents to the manufacturer who after scrutinizing them as per scheme, sanction/reject the same. In sanctioned claims, intimation would be given to the dealer for making payment who paid the sanctioned sum to customer concerned and would claim the paid amount from manufacturer. This offer was subject to some terms and conditions which are are as under :-

   (i) Exchange claim would be valid only if the old car is transferred 30 days prior to bill 105 days after new car purchase.

   (ii) Exchange claim would be valid only if the ownership of the old car has been with the new car buyer for a minimum of six months (180 days)

   (iii) Transfer of old car in blood relations is not permitted for exchange claim eligibility

   (iv) Deviation :-

   The following deviation with regard to the ownership of the previous vehicle is permissible :-

   Old Car New Car Remarks Additional requirement

   Onwer Buyer

(a) Parents Child Resi. Proof for both for last six months

(b) Husband Wife Or Vice-Versa - do -

Following documents are required to have Exchange claim. Documents required in this case are as under :-

1. Old Car R.C. before transfer in the same name

2. Old Car R.C. after transfer in name other than that of blood relation.

In this case, no condition referred above was fulfilled and as such, complainant is not entitled to any benefit of Exchange Claim.

Regarding Corporate Claim, it has been pleaded that to promote sale this scheme was launched by opposite party No. 1 i.e. manufacturer with certain terms and conditions and also on completion of documents within time frame i.e. within 2 months. As per scheme, eligible customer has to provide required documents to concerned dealer and on completion of documents such customer has to sign submission of claim Form and Annexure -6 Form/undertaking after duly filling it, within time frame which is 2 months in this case. The dealer concerned sends these Forms accompanied by required documents to the manufacturer who after scrutinizing the same, if finds in order , as per scheme, gives sanction otherwise rejects the same. For taking benefit under this scheme, the documents required to be submitted was :

1. Last month salary statement

2. To whom it may concern

3. I-Card

4. New Car R.C.

The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 pleaded that complainant did not complete the documents within the time as was clear from his Identity Card produced by him alongwith his complaint which is of dated 13-08-2009. So claim was rightly rejected and there was no scheme of gold coin at the time of purchase made by the complainant.

4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. We have heard the arguments at length and have gone through the record and perused written submissions submitted by the parties.

6. The complainant booked Santro Eco GLS White model car and paid Rs. 10,000/- vide cheque No. 155287 dated 4-11-2008 after being allured by the opposite parties for handing over benefits of free accessories worth Rs. 5,000/- including matting, N/P, perfume, body cover Teflon coating; exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- against exchange of his old car, special offer of Rs. 4,000/- being corporate employee, free insurance and gold coin. After purchase of said car he transferred the car bearing Regn. No. PB-60A-2765 with opposite party No. 1 as exchange offer as agreed between the complainant and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The opposite parties submitted that there was no gold coin offer on this car. This scheme was for i10 Car that too was valid upto 1-12-2008. The exchange claim was subject to some terms and conditions, according to which exchange claim was valid only if the old car was transferred within 30 days prior to bill 105 days after purchase of new car; if the ownership of the old car has been with the new car buyer for a minimum of six months (180 days) and the transfer of old car in blood relation is not permitted for exchange claim eligibility. The opposite parties have given deviation with regard to ownership of previous vehicle permissible in case parents, child, husband, wife or vice-versa with additional requirement of proof for both for last six months. The documents required for exchange claim were old car RC for transfer in the same name and old car RC after transfer in name other than than of blood relation. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written reply that the complainant is also not eligible for the corporate claim as he has not submitted the documents within the period of two months.

7. Regarding gold coin, the complainant has placed on file Owner's Manual & Service Booklet of the complainant Ex. C-2 wherein at the last page of it, a note has been given “Pending Gold Coin” and this note has been signed by Sukhwant Singh on 10-11-2008. To rebut this, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Sukhwant Singh vide Ex. R-1, in which he has deposed :-

   “..... (i) Gold Coin – There was no gold coin scheme at the time of purchasing car by complainant. Whatever scheme was available it was written down in Ex. C-3 produced by complainant himself and it bears signatures of the representative of opposite party No. 2, deponent and complainant himself. Perusal of this document Ex. C-3 goes to show that neither gold coin scheme was in operation at that time nor it was agreed. Further more letter Ex. C-6, produced by the complainant himself also does not reveal about gold coin. Had it been there then complainant must have written about it in his application Ex. C-6.

   Hand-written scheme of deponent produced by complainant alongwith his complaint is with regard to three different Cars. Complainant has lateron forged and fabricated it. Words “Insurance” in Scheme of i10 Car and Words “quality/Gold Coin/Wheel Cup” is not in my hand-writing.”

   He has further deposed that to promote sale benefit of gold coin which was of about one gram gold coin was given, but when gold coin scheme at the time of purchase of car by complainant was not available, then question of giving such a scheme does not arise at all.

   Sh. Sukhwant Singh in para No. 2 of his affidavit Ex. R-1 has further deposed that hand written note “Pending Gold Coin” in his handwriting on Ex.C-2 factually does not pertain to the complainant

   A perusal of Booking Form Ex. C-3 which has been filled at the time of booking of the car in question shows that the accessories which were to be supplied were ; matting, N/P perfume, body cover, teflon coating, mud flap and in others Exchange 15000 and corporate 4000/-. On this document nothing has been mentioned about the gold coin. Further a perusal of Ex. C-5 shows and confirms the version of Sukhwant Singh that he has told the complainant about three cars and has prepared estimate of these three cars and the benefits to be extended with Santro GLS White car of the complainant were mentioned as matting, N/P. Perfume, body cover, MP3 player, Mud flap, teflon coating, insurance, Exh – 15,000/- and Corporate 4,000/- were written in the hand-writing of Sukhwant Singh and duly signed by him. However, a perusal of Ex. C-5 reveals that the words mentioned on the left corner of the list i.e. “gold coin and wheel cup” are not in the handwriting of Sukhwant Singh. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of gold coin.

8. Regarding the 2^nd prayer of the complainant for exchange claim, a perusal of Ex. C-6 shows that complainant had written a letter dated 17-08-2009 to G.M. Raja Motors, Hyundai, Bathinda. The contents of this letter are as under :-

   “I purchased a new car SANTRO GLS LPG from your agency on 9-10 November, 2008. I was assured of confirmed Corporate (1000-00) and Exchange bonus (15,000-00) by company executive Sh. Sukhwant Singh. On his demand, I submitted all required paper. Till today I am not able to get my above said promised assured benefit.

   Kindly do needful to provide me these benefits.

   Note – find attached duplicate papers-I card”

   In this letter, the complainant has no where mentioned that he had been offered a Gold coin at the time of purchase of the above said vehicle. The noting has been done on Ex. C-6 that “second time received all documents as on 17-08-2009” shows that all the documents were duly received by the opposite parties i.e. prior to this letter. Ex. R-3 and Ex. C-6 are the same documents. But, the difference is that on Ex. R-3 the noting has been given that “Exchange claim rejected due to he is not owner of the old car himself”. This noting has not been signed by anyone, which shows that the document produced by the complainant as Ex. C-6 is genuine one and the nothing given on Ex. R-3 is afterthought just to reject the claim of the complainant. Ex. R-4 shows that the undertaking is signed by Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma dated 29-08-2009. Registration Certificate vide Ex. R-5 shows that the car has been transferred in the name of Amar Parkash Sharma and the name of the registered owner is Jaskaran Singh, this registration certificate is of 05-05-2000. The terms and conditions regarding the exchange offer were never supplied to the complainant. Hence, the offer cannot be rejected on this score.

9. Regarding the Corporate claim, the complainant at the time of booking of the car and finally paying the full amount of the car must have done some formalities like showing his last month salary statement, to whom it may concern certificate, I-card etc., as he has been government employee few years before the purchase of the car. Vide Ex. R-11 dated 17-08-2009, it has been written on this document that second time received all documents as on 17-08-2009, which shows that the opposite parties have already received these documents earlier also. Hence, the opposite parties cannot deny the Corporate claim to the complainant.

10. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 3 & 4. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- on account of exchange offer and Rs. 4,000/- as Corporate offer to the complainant jointly and severally.

    The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the awarded amount of Rs. 19,000/- will carry interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 31^st day of receipt of the order till realisation.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

19-11-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member