IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
Dated this the 23rd Day of March 2018
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member
CC.No.165/2014
Ajeesh .A.V : Complainant
Ajeesh Bhavanam,
Near S.G.N Company
Perumpuzha P.O
Kollam
[By Adv.Perumpuzha K.Subrahmanian]
V/S
1 Hyundai Motors Indica Ltd : Opposite parties
Flot. No.HI Zip Cot Industrial Park
Irrigated Cottai
Tamil Nadu – 602 105
2. Hiltant Owner
Proprietor Jose, HiltonHyundai ,Sign
T.C.36/58(6), N.H. Bypass Road
Inchakkal , T.V.M – 695008
[By Adv.M.K.Unnikrishnan]
3. Renjith
Manager
Hilton Hyundai ,Opposite Juma Mazjid
Thattamala
Kollam – 691 020
ORDER
SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER
This is a case based on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by one Ajeesh against the opposite parties claiming Rs.25,000/- as discount amount and also seeking to direct the opposite parties to obtain permanent registration in the name of the complainant in respect of
2
Hyundai 110 ERA 1-1 Car and also seeking compensation from the opposite parties.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant had booked a Hyundai 110 ERA 1-1 model car agreeing to purchase the same for Rs.4,20,635/- from opposite parties and at the time of booking opposite parties promised that they will give car accessories worth Rs.20,000/- and will give Rs.25,000/- as exchange value and also register the car in the name of the complainant in their expense. But the accessories like mat, Seat cover, steering grip, wheel cup supplied by the opposite parties along with the car are very low quality and defective. Under coating was very poor quality. Central lock was defective at the time of delivery. Jacky set and tools were old one and given after 15 days of delivery of the car. Opposite parties not given exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- but collected Rs.10,270/- for Insurance Charge Rs.23,230/- for tax, Rs.4000/- for permanent registration, Rs.3500/- for paid accessories , Rs.3,79,635/- as vehicle price . According to complaint basis RCL wheel cup, seat cover are to be issued free of cost. Opposite parties not registered the vehicle permanently. Hence the complainant approached the Forum against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and seeking to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- being the fine likely to be improved by KTO authority as the vehicle was not registered permanently within time . And also to refund Rs.25,000/- as exchange basis, 20,000/- for new accessories and 25000/- as compensation.
3
Though the opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance, they have not chosen to file any written version nor adduced by any evidence. Hence they are set exparte. The complainant failed to produce correct address of opposite party 3. Hence complainant against opposite party 3 will stands dismissed by the Forum.
The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and got marked as Ext.P1 to P5 documents. Complainant’s counsel has not filed argument notes nor argued on the merit of the case.
The materials available on record would indicate that complainant had purchased a Hyundai 110 ERA 1-1 model car of Rs.4,20,635/- from opposite parties. According to complainant, the registering authority will impose fine up to Rs.10000/- for late registration. But it is not clear whether the car was permanently registered or not so far or how much fine imposed so far. There is no materials available on record to prove that how much amount has been imposed as late fee or fine for not registering in time. So we are not in a position to allow Rs.10,000/-for the late fee fine which is likely to be imposed in future. On examination of Ext.P1, P3, P4 documents, it is also clear that complainant had booked a Hyundai 110 ERA 1-1 model car from opposite parties. Complainant claimed that as per Ext.P2 document customer offer/paid form he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- as exchange bonus. But according to the complainant the opposite parties have not given the exchange bonus. But it is clear from the available materials including Ext.P4 account statement that an amount of Rs.25,000/- were given as exchange bonus for the complainant. Hence the prayer for bonus amounting to Rs.25,000/- is only to be dismissed. Complainant claimed that opposite parties given old accessories along with car
4
and thus Rs.20,000/- will needed to buy new accessories . Complainant has no case that opposite parties were not given accessories as per Ext.P2. Complainants claim is only that the issued accessories are old one and having bad quality. But complainant failed to prove that the accessories were old one and have of not good quality. Accessories neither produced nor adduced any report from any expert regarding the quality or price of accessories. Hence the prayer to grant Rs.20,000/- as price of accessories is also to be rejected.
There is absolutely no materials to prove at least primafascie that there is negligence, deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. We find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result complaint stands dismissed. No costs ordered.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of March 2018.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant
PW1:-Ajeesh
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Receipt dated 24.09.2012
Ext.P2:- Copy of customer offer/paid form
Ext.P3:- Copy of order form
Ext.P4:- Copy of account statement
Ext.P5:- Copy of temporary certificate of registration
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
M.Praveen Kumar:-Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
