Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

452/2008

Srichand P.Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India LtdNp-54,developed Plots,Thiru -Vi-ka Industries Estate & other - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   05.11.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   08.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.452/2008

TUESDAY THIS  8^TH   DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Srichand P. Ahuja,

85/10, Sri Rangam Avenue,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                         .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

NP-54, Developed Plot,

Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate,

Ekkaduthangal, Guindy,

Chennai 600 032.

Rep.  by its Manager.

 

2. TAFE Access Limited,

No.803, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

Rep. by its Manager,                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. V. Balaji & another

Counsel for opposite party-1   :    M/s. Fox Mandal & Associates.

Counsel for opposite party-2  :    M/s. V.Jayachandra & Associates.   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of Hyundai Cars.  The 2^nd opposite party was the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party.    The complainant further state that on seeing the advertisement he approached the 2^nd opposite party and purchased a new Hyundai Santro X of 2007 model for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,17,559/- by exchanging his old car bearing registration No.TN 07 AB 5160.  The old car is 2003 model.    Further the complainant also state that one A.Nasar Basha purchased the complainant’s old car for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-  and took delivery of the car on 7.5.2007 itself.    The 2^nd opposite party took time upto 14.5.2007 for registration of the complainant’s new vehicle.   The complainant took delivery of new car on 15.5.2007 along with necessary documents.    As per promise both the parties have not handed over MP3 player and bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-.   Hence the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite parties asking the bonus and MP3 player on 26.5.2008.  The 1^st opposite party replied that the dealership of the 2^nd opposite party was closed w.e.f. 31.5.2008.   The complainant received a letter from the 1^st opposite party on 30.7.2008 that he is not eligible for exchange Bonus since old vehicle ownership transfer took more than 60 days.    Accordingly the complainant issued advocate notice to the opposite parties on 4.9.2008 calling upon them to pay exchange of bonus and MP3 player but  they have rejected the bonus claim.   As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service; mental agony and unfair trade practice to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 1^st opposite party    are as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 1^st opposite party submit that the answering opposite party did not publish the alleged advertisement.   On the basis of information received from the opposite party No.2 that the complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro X car from the opposite party-2 vide retail invoice No.H200700186 dated 30.4.2007.   It is also submitted that the complainant submitted the documents for claim of exchange bonus including the transferred registration certificate and an undertaking for exchange bonus claim to opposite party-2 on 24.10.2007, much beyond the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of the invoice of the new car.    The 1^st opposite party also state that since the complainant did not fulfill the requirement of transfer of his old car within 60 days from the date of the new car invoice, he was not eligible to claim an exchange bonus and the same was informed to the complainant by the answering opposite party.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the 2^nd  opposite party   are as follows:

                   The 2^nd  opposite party state that the opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The 2^nd opposite party submit that this opposite party has not given any promise for the exchange bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-.  However for the free MP3 play, the 2^nd opposite party has given a cash discount of Rs.10,000/- as required by the complainant in place of the free MP3 player, apart from extending special cash discount of Rs.25,000/- towards the other offer and the opposite party further gave free Mat kids and mud flaps to the complainant.    The 2^nd opposite party also state that at no point of time this answering opposite party has given any assurance for the exchange bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- offered by the 1^st opposite party and for getting the same, the complainant has to submit sale / transfer documents within the period of the validity of the said offer.  Inspite of explaining the status to the complainant, since the complainant was insisting the 2^nd opposite party rightly the 2^nd opposite party had notified the complainant that they were no longer the dealer of the 1^st opposite party and the agreement period was expired on 31.5.2008 with a request to approach the 1^st opposite party for the claim of the exchange bonus.   The 2^nd opposite party submit that  upon receipt of notice dated 4.9.2008 has promptly written to the 1^st opposite party informing them to notify the reason for rejection of exchange bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- and further once again forwarded all the relevant documents, showing eligibility of the exchange bonus by the complainant.   Since there was no reply the 2^nd opposite party has promptly sent a reply to the advocate notice.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.   

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards exchange of bonus as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for ?

 

6.   POINTS 1 & 2:

        Heard both sides. Perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of Hyundai cars, the 2^nd opposite party was the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer of Hyundai car.  The 2^nd opposite party gave an advertisement in the English daily Hindu regarding bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- with MP3 player and free insurance for three years, extended warranty etc.   and the  exchange  offer will be valid till 18.5.2007 as per Ex.A4. On seeing the advertisement  the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and purchased a new Hyundai  Santro X car of 2007 model for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,17,559/- as per Ex.B1 by exchanging his old car bearing NO.TN 07 AB 5160.  The old car is of 2003 model for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- and the complainant took delivery of the new car on 15.5.2007 itself as per Ex.A1.  The 2^nd opposite party took time upto 14.5.2007 for registration of the complainant’s new vehicle.   The exchange old vehicle was purchased by one A.Nasar Basha on 7.5.2007 and took delivery on 15.5.2007.  Even after repeated requests and demands both the opposite parties has not paid the bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- and MP3 player as per the advertisement.   Hence the complainant was constrained to send a letter dated 26.5.2008 claiming the bonus amount and MP3 player.  The opposite parties without complying the letter sent a reply dated 30.7.3008 stating that the 2^nd opposite party is not continuing as dealer of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party contended that since the exchanged vehicle was sold after 60 days the complainant is not entitled to any bonus and others as per advertisement.   But it is seen from Ex.A1 that the exchanged vehicle was sold on 7.5.2007 and delivery was effected on 15.5.2007 establishes unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. 

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the 2^nd opposite party in his written version very clearly admitted about the offer and the liability of the 1^st opposite party to comply the offer.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties further contended that admittedly the exchange offer was given by the 2^nd opposite party with the concurrence of 1^st opposite party.  Equally the complainant purchased a new Hyundai Santro X of 2007 model car on 15.5.2007 after duly exchange of an old vehicle also admitted.  The learned counsel for the  1^st opposite party contented that the exchanged vehicle was sold within reasonable time of 60 days.  Hence the 1^st opposite party was not able to pay the exchange  bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- and the offer of MP-3 player but no such stipulation given in the advertisement.  On the other hand the 2^nd opposite party admitted the liability of 1^st opposite party in payment of bonus amount and  the MP3 player as per advertisement in English daily Hindu.    On the other hand as per Ex.A1 the exchanged vehicle was sold and delivered on 15.5.2007.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the claim of compensation towards mental agony deficiency of service and unfair trade practice are all imaginary and is unsustainable.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- and compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.3,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay  bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and also to pay compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant.

        The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  8^th   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  15.5.2007 - Copy of Delivery Note.

Ex.A2- 26.5.2008 - Copy of reply by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A3- 30.7.2008 - Copy of reply by 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A4- 4.9.2008   - Copy of advocate notice with  Ack. Cards.

Ex.A5- 25.9.2008 - Copy of reply from 2^nd opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -  

Ex.B1- 30.4.2007  - Copy of invoice.

Ex.B2- 16.10.2007 - Copy of registration certificate.

Ex.B3- 24.10.2007 - Copy of undertaking for exchange bonus claim.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.