BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 550 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 08.09.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 24.01.2011 |
Ms.Geeta, Librarian, State Institute of Education, Sector 32, Chandigarh ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobile Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Phse-1, Chandigarh. 2] Regional Officer, Hyundai Motors India Ltd., DLF Tower, 3rd Floor, Block-B, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL PRESIDING MEMBER DR(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Ram Singh, Father/Auth. Repr. of complainant. Sh.S.R.Bansal, Adv. for OP-1 OP No.2 exparte. PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one I-10 Hyundai Car from OP-1 on 21.7.2008. It is averred that the OP No.1 at the time of purchase of the car had promised to give exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- within 2 months, which was admissible to a govt. Servant who sells his old car and purchase a new Hyundai Car. The complainant had sold his old Maruti car and purchased new Hyundai Car and supplied all necessary documents to OP-1 for getting the said exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. However, OPs failed to give the exchange bonus to the complainant inspite of his several visits and numerous requests. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing the complainant great tension & harassment. 2] OP-1 filed reply and admitted that the sale of the car to the complainant. It is submitted that it is the duty of the manufacturer to release the exchange bonus, as per their terms, if any, because the papers were sent to the Regional Sale Manager, M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. along with other claims, which was duly received by them and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. It is also submitted that the car was purchased on 21.7.2008 whereas the complaint has been filed in Sept., 2010. Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 3] OP-2 did not turn up despite having being duly service with the notice of complaint, hence it was proceeded against exparte on 25.10.2010. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] We have heard the representative of the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record. 6] The sole grouse of the complainant is that she has not been paid the due exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- even after depositing all requisite documents with OP-1. 7] However, the complainant in the rejoinder filed on 12.1.2011 has stated that the dealer has given a cheque of Rs.10,000/- on 3.12.2010 on account of exchange bonus after taking satisfaction note, but since she has been harassed, she should be given the interest and cost of litigation. 8] Admittedly, the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the complainant in the month of Dec., 2010 whereas the car was purchased in July, 2008 i.e. after a gap of more than 2 years. It has been clearly mentioned in para no.2 of reply of OP-1, that the papers with regard to the exchange bonus were sent to the Regional Sales, Manager, M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (OP-2) with other claims vide letter dated 10.09.2008 but it was the OP-2 only who took about more than 2 years to process the claim of the complainant and that too during the pendency of the case, which shows that there had been a delay on the part of OP-2 only, who sat on the papers for more than 2 years. 9] In the present case the payment of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus was made on 3.12.2010 vide cheque dated 30.11.2010 and that too during the pendency of the present complaint when the case was fixed for arguments. The amount was retained by OP-2 unnecessarily and no interest as damages has been paid. It appears that the OP-2 has acted only after filing the present complaint by the complainant when they came to know that they were at fault. It clearly shows that the OP-2 was deficient in rendering proper service and was adopting unfair trade practice in holding the amount of exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- without any ground. 10] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP-2 is directed to pay interest @12% p.a. on the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- since 10.10.2008 (one month after the papers were sent to OP-2 by OP-1) till 03.12.2010 (when the payment of exchange bonus was made to the complainant through cheque dated 30.11.2010). The OP-2 is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- 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 OP-2 within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the aforesaid interest @18% p.a. instead of 12%, till the payment is actually made to the complainant, besides payment of compensation and costs. 11] Since, no deficiency has been proved on OP-1, the complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned. | | SD/- | SD/- | 24th Jan., 2011 | | [MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA] | [RAJINDER SINGH GILL | | | Member | Presiding Member | | | | |
| DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | |