CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

 

CC No.112/09

Friday the 31^st day of December, 2010.

 

Petitioner                                              : Licily thomas Kadavil,

                                                               Senior Manager,

                                                             Canara Bank, Kottayam,

                                                               residing at Neduvelil,

                                                               Vadavathoor PO, Kottayam.

                                                               (Adv. A.J. Dominic)

                                                           Vs.

 

Opposite parties                                   : 1) Popular Motor World Private Ltd.

                                                                  Rep. by its Managing Director at

                                                                  Popular Hyundai, Thadathil Buildings,

                                                                  Sastri Road, Kottayam-1

                                                             2) Hyundai Motor India Ltd,

                                                                 Rep by its Managing Director at

                                                                 A-30 Mohan Co-Op Industrial Area,

                                                                 Phase-1 Mathura Road,

                                                                 New Delhi-110044

                                                             3) Johnson Zachariah,

                                                                 Product Advisor and Sales Officer,

                                                                 Popular Motor World Private Ltd.,

                                                                 Thadathil Buildings,

                                                                 Sastri Road, Kottayam-1.

                                                                (OP 1& 3 Adv. Siby Chenappady K)

 

 

Smt. Bindhu. M. Thomas, Member.

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows:

 

            The complainant purchased a Hyundai Getz GLS 1.3 Car from 1^st opposite party on 20/3/2008. The purchase of the car was made and effected on the basis of the offer made by 2^nd opposite party through its product advisor 3^rd opposite party on 1/3/2008. For the sale of the car, as per the scheme offered, and accepted, there was an exchange of an old vehicle Maruti 800 car of having Reg. No. KL2F 7369, owned by the complainant. The offer for the sale of the Getz GLS car contained an exchange bonus of Rs.. 10,000/- payable to the purchaser. The exchange bonus was offered by the 2^nd opposite party when the payment for the purchase of the new vehicle was received by the 1^st opposite party on 20/3/08 and it was represented to the purchaser that the exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid to the purchaser subsequently within a period of 3 months, on receiving the amount of exchange bonus from 2^nd opposite party. After 3 months the complainant asked the opposite parties to disburse the exchange bonus. Opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 did not disburse the exchange bonus to the purchaser. On enquiry the complainant understood that the exchange bonus should have been given to the purchaser at the time of purchase of the new vehicle, as the old vehicle exchanged had been delivered before 2 weeks of the purchase of the new vehicle. The complainant made personal contacts and correspondences with the opposite parties with respect to the claim and for getting exchange bonus. Inspite of repeated demands the opposite parties failed to make the payment of exchange bonus. The opposite parties committed fraud in the transactions for the sale of the car to the complainant. Hence the complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and filed this complaint claiming Rs. 21,450/- and litigation cost.

            The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd   opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties filed version together with the following main contentions.

1)      At the time of purchase of the alleged car there was an offer from the 2^nd opposite party for providing an exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- to the purchasers of new vehicles on certain conditions prescribed. As per the condition, the person who claims exchange bonus should furnish necessary documents such as RC book of the old vehicle, copy of the ownership transferred page of the exchanged vehicle, etc within 90 days of the sale. Inspite of repeated demands the complainant failed to furnish the same within the stipulated time. Hence the 2^nd opposite party rejected the claim for exchange bonus. The allegations that the opposite parties rejected the claim purposefully and thereby committed cheating, breach of trust and unfair trade practice are false and hence denied.

2)      The claim for exchange bonus was rejected only because of the complainant’s fault and inadvertence. So the opposite parties are not liable for the same. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to them.

The 2^nd opposite party filed version separately with the following main contentions.

            1)The exchange bonus as sought by the complainant was payable subject to certain terms and conditions, which was not complied with by the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme the complainant was required to submit the following documents.(i) New Car invoice signed by complainant(ii)Old Car Registration Certificate before transfer in same name and address(iii)Old Car Registration Certificate after transfer in the name other than that of blood relation. Further the transfer of the old car was to be effected 30 days prior or till 105 days after new car purchase to be eligible for the exchange bonus scheme. But the complainant had not provided any document to the 1^st opposite party and therefore the 1^st opposite party couldn’t forward the same to the 2^nd opposite party for the disbursal of the exchange bonus.

            2) As the complainant failed to submit the complete set of documents with the opposite parties within the prescribed time, she is not eligible in the said scheme. The 2^nd opposite party has not committed any fraud and breach of trust with the complainant. So the 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Points for consideration are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the complainant and opposite parties and Exts A1 to A6 and Ext.B1, depositions of DW1 and PW1.

            Heard the counsels for both sides and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that the purchase of the car was made on the basis of an offer made by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties through the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant further averred that the sale of Getz Car contained an exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- and that the opposite parties failed to disburse the said bonus to the purchaser. The counsel for the 1^st opposite party submitted that their claim for exchange bonus was rejected as the complainant has not furnished the necessary documents within the time. The 1^st opposite party’s counsel further submitted that they had given the terms and conditions for the eligibility of claims to the complainant. The said terms and conditions are produced before the Forum and it is marked as Ext.B1. But the counsel for the complainant countered that no such terms and conditions were given to the complainant. On scanning the documents on record nothing is seen produced to prove the 1^st opposite party’s submission regarding the supply of terms and conditions to the complainant. The complainant’s counsel submitted that the scheme for the sale of the new car consisted an exchange sale of the car owned by the complainant. He further submitted that the exchange sale of old car of the complainant was effected on 1/3/08 as  part of transactions envisaged by making delivery of the old car Maruti 800 as per possession letter. The complainant produced the above mentioned possession letter and it is marked as Ext.A2. As per the Ext.A2,  possession letter it is understood that the complainant had handed over the old car to Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd Kottayam along with RC book, odometer reading, duplicate key, seller ID proof, tax token and tool kit. Where as DW1 deposed that the complainant has not given the documents concerned with the old vehicle.Ext.A2, possession letter proves that the testimony of DW1 is false. DW1 further deposed that the Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd Kottayam to whom the complainant had given her old car is having no connection with the 1^st opposite party As per Ext.A2 the total consideration of the old vehicle is Rs.68,000/-. The complainant has produced a copy of customer account settlement voucher dated 20/3/08 supplied by the 1^st opposite party and it is marked as Ext.A3. On perusal of Ext.A3 it is understood that the very same vehicle consideration mentioned in Ext.A2 is recorded as amount received in Ext.A3 issued by the 1^st opposite party. Even though the 1^st opposite party contented that they have no relation with Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd Ktm, which issued Ext.A2, nothing is placed on record to prove the said contention. As the sale consideration of the complainant’s old vehicle is recorded as amount received in Ext.A3 it is quite clear that the old car was purchased by the 1^st opposite party itself. After receiving the RC book and the necessary documents of the complainant’s old car and after entering the sale consideration of the said carRs.68,000/- in Ext.A3, the 1^st opposite party rejected the complainant’s claim for exchange bonus merely on the reason that the terms and conditions for exchange bonus were not fulfilled by the complainants. The documents on record clearly proves the unfair trade practice committed by the 1^st opposite party. If the 1^st opposite party had forwarded the RC book and the necessary documents which were already received by them prior to the delivery of the new car, then definitely the complainant would have got the exchange bonus at the right time. In this case the acts of 1^st opposite party caused this unnecessary litigation and monetary loss to the complainant. In our view the opposite parties are liable to compensate the losses suffered by the complainant.

            In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is ordered as follows.

 The 2^nd opposite party will pay the exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party will pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2010

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Preliminary information sheet dtd 1/3/08

Ext.A2-Possession letter issued by the agent of the 1^st opposite party

Ext.A3-Customer Account Settlement voucher dtd 20/3/08

Ext.A4-Office copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 10/2/09

Ext.A5 series postal receipts dtd 10/2/09

Ext.A6 series postal Acknowledgment card dtd 10/2/09(3 nos)

Ext.B1-Terms and conditions of the exchange bonus

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.