District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/08/2010
CC No.99/2010
R.Radhakrishnan
S/o.Late M.K.K.Nair
‘Midhila’
Bye Pass Road
Shoranur
Ottapalam Taluk
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.John John)
Vs
1. K.T.C Automobiles (P) Ltd
26/190(1), Vithunni Road
Palakkad.
Rep by its Manager
2. KTC Hyundai
Poonkunnam
Thrissur District.
Rep by its Manager - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.Sivadasan for opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K, MEMBER
Complaint is as follows:
The representative of the first opposite party approached the complainant and offered an amount of Rs.7,500/- as exchange bonus if he is changing his old car and buy a new car of Hyundai make. The complainant was inspired by the promise and offer made by the opposite parties and hence contacted the 1st opposite party and confirmed the matter and decided to exchange his Maruthi 800 car bearing No.Kl-9J 7176 and buy a new Santro Xing car. The complainant made enquiries regarding the terms and conditions for the above said offer. The 1st opposite party also undertook to take the Maruthi 800 car bearing No. Kl-9J 7176 from the complainant for a price of Rs.95,000/- and also assured the complainant that he will also get an additional benefit of Rs.7,500/- as exchange bonus offer. By getting the above said assurance from the opposite party the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party on 23/12/08 as token advance for purchasing a black Santro Xing GLS car. The complainant also handed over his Maruthi 800 car bearing No. Kl-9J 7176 with the 1st opposite party. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 29/12/08 with the 1st opposite party and took delivery of the vehicle on 31/12/08. The above said balance amount paid by the complainant was after deducting the amount of Rs.95,000/- the value of old car as offered by the first opposite party and Rs.5,000/- paid as token advance while delivering the new car to the complainant. The opposite party assured that the old car will be transferred within 75 days of the purchase of new car. The Maruthi 800 car was transferred to Kanakaraj, S/o.Krishnaswamy Kounder by the opposite parties. The opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.7,500/- within three months from the date of delivery. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times for getting the above said exchange bonus. But the opposite parties were protracting the payment by presenting some flimsy reasons.
At this juncture the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the 2nd opposite party on 6/1/10 stating all these facts. But the opposite parties issued a reply stating false and frivolous reasons. In the above said reply the 2nd opposite party had stated that the 2nd opposite party had received papers from the 1st opposite party without transfer RC dt.29/3/09 and they have sent the documents with transfer receipt to HMIL dt.2/4/09 that HMIL rejected the same for the reason that transfer RC was not attached. It was also stated in the reply that the 2nd opposite party had not received the transfer RC till 20/8/09 hence they collected the Web RC from computer and sent it to HMIL dt.20/8/09. From the above said reply itself it is clear that the opposite parties had offered and assured the exchange bonus scheme to the complainant. It is also evident from the payment made by the complainant that the old car belonging to the complainant was taken by the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties were duty bound to provide the necessary documents to HMIL. Due to the above said act of the opposite parties much hardship and mental agony is caused to complainant. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- as the exchange bonus offered by the opposite parties and Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased a new Hyundai car from the opposite parties. But at that time the opposite parties has not offered any exchange bonus to the complainant. Complainant has not brought any car to the opposite parties for exchange. The complainant purchased a new car on 30/12/08. On or before that he never produced any RC before this opposite party for an exchange bonus. The allegations in the complainant are all not sustainable and are to be proved with documentary evidence by the complainant. Moreover the exchange bonus is an offer made by the manufacturing company and the company is not made a party in this proceedings. So the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint or exonerate the opposite parties from the liability.
Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence is adduced on the side of opposite parties.
Heard both parties and perused the documents on record.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2:
Complainant in this complaint is alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not making payment of Rs.7,500/- as exchange bonus offered by the opposite parties. Complainant says that the representative of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant and offered an amount of Rs.7,500/- as exchange bonus offer if he is exchanging his old car and buy a new car of Hyundai make. By getting the above said assurance from the opposite parties the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party on 23/12/08 as token advance. The 1st opposite party also undertook to take the Maruthi 800 car bearing No. Kl-9J 7176from the complainant for a price of Rs.95,000/-. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 29/12/08 with the 1st opposite party and took delivery of the vehicle on 31/12/08. The above said balance amount paid by the complainant was after deducting the amount of Rs.95,000/- the value of old car as offered by the 1st opposite party and Rs.5,000/- paid as token advance. While delivering the new car to the complainant the opposite parties assured that the old car will be transferred within 75 days of new purchased Maruthi 800 car bearing No.KL-9 J7176 was transferred to Kanakaraj S/o.Krishnaswami Kounder by the opposite parties. Complainant alleges that the opposite parties have not paid Rs.7,500/- as exchange bonus offered by the opposite parties.
The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the documentary evidence produced by the complainant does not reveal that there was such exchange bonus offer by the opposite parties. Complainant alleges that “the reply notice issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party itself make it clear that opposite parties have offered and assured the exchange bonus to the complainant”. But to prove this the complainant has not produced their reply notice issued by 2nd opposite party. Complainant produced Ext.A1 document i.e the copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle issued by the Regional Transports Officer, Palakkad to Mr.Kanakaraj with the endorsement “RC particulars issued to the R/o for producing before the company”. From this document with endorsement it is clear that there existed a relation between both parties.
Another document produced by the complainant (A2) is Retail invoice. The price of the Santro GLS Etony black car is written as Rs.3,38,511/-. Ext.A3 is the cash receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Complainant stated in his complaint that the balance amount i.e Rs.2,50,000/- was after deducting the amount of Rs.95,000/- the value of the old car as offered by the 1st opposite party and Rs.5,000/- paid as token advance. If it is not so the opposite parties will take steps to get balance amount. That has not happened. No documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite parties.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, we allowed the complaint. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of January, 2011
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/- Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Registration particulars
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of retail invoice
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of cash receipt for Rs.2,50,000/- dtd.30/12/08
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of lawyer notice dt.06/01/10
Ext.A5 – Acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost (Allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
