DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th day of February 2011

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing : 17/2/2009

(C.C.No.20/2009)

Thulasi K.M

W/o.Sivasankaran.

“Gokulam”

Manissery (PO),

Ottapalam, Palakkad - Complainant

(By Adv.John John)

V/s

1. KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd

26/190(1), Vithunni Road

Palakkad

(By Adv.P.G.Devadas & K.Sivadasan)

2. KTC Hyundai

Poonkunnam

Thrissur District

(By Adv.P.G.Devadas & K.Sivadasan)

3. The CEO

M/s.Hyundai Motors Ltd

A30, Mohand Co.Op.Inudstrial Estate,

Phase I, Madhan Road,

New Delhi - 44

(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty) - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt. BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER

Complaint in brief :

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the authorized dealers of Hyundai Company. The complainant was inspired by seeing the advertisement published by the opposite parties in Dailies regarding the special offer provide by the opposite parties wherein an amount of Rs.10,000/- was offered to the customer who are exchanging their old car and buying new car of Hyundai make and decided to exchange her husband’s Maruthi 800 car bearing registration No.KL-7-N-8560. The complainant alongwith her husband named Sivasankaran approached the first opposite party and made enquiry regarding the terms and conditions for the above said offer and the complainant was assured by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant will get the benefit of the above said offer if the complainant is exchanging the Maruthi 800 car belonging to her husband. By getting the assurance of the 1^st opposite party the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- to the 1^st opposite party on 18/4/2008 as token advance for purchasing Dynamic Red colour Santro Xing GLS-E3(R) car. Since the said colour was not available with the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant to go to the 2^nd opposite party and the said token advance was forwarded by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party and directed the complainant to pay the balance amount to the 2^nd opposite party and take delivery of the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant paid the balance amount with the 2^nd opposite party on 23/4/2008 and took delivery of the vehicle.

When the complainant demanded the exchange bonus as offered 1^st opposite party directed to handover certain documents to the 2^nd opposite party. As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party the complainant submitted the documents to the 2^nd opposite party on 26/4/2008 and the same was received by Mr.Ranjith, Dy.Sales Manager, KTC Hyundai, Pookunnam, Thrissur. On receipt of the above said document 2^nd opposite party agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within four month from 26/4/2008. The complainant approached the opposite party several times for getting the above said exchange bonus. But the opposite parties were protracting the payment by presenting some flimsy reasons. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party on 1/12/2008 calling upon 2^nd opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest from 26/4/2008. Eventhough the 2^nd opposite party received the notice 2^nd opposite party has neither sent any reply nor paid any amount. Hence the complainant is seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as offered by the opposite parties as exchange bonus and Rs.10,000/- as compensation alongwith cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.

Opposite parties admit that the complainant had purchased a new Hyundai car from this respondent. At the same time it is not true to say that opposite parties had offered exchange bonus to the petitioner. Opposite parties contents that as per the norms of the exchange claim one is entitled only if he has transferred his old car after the purchase of the new Hyundai car and not before the purchase of the new car from Hyundai. In the complainant’s case she purchased the car as per invoice dated 23/4/2008. The petitioner's husband sold his old car Maruthi 800 on 23/3/2008 one month before the purchase of the new car. As per the guidelines issued by the company the first clause itself is that “the exchange claim would be valid only if the old car is transferred after new car purchased. Secondly exchange claim would be valid only if the car is transferred within 75 days of new car purchase. Opposite party again says that it is not true to say that Mr.Ranjith, Dy.Sales Manager of the company agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A10 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B8 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Matter heard.

Now the issues that arise for our consideration are

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

parties ?

2.If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled to ?

Issue 1 & 2

Complaint is with regard to non receipt of exchange bonus. The complainant was inspired by seeing the advertisement published by the opposite party, wherein an amount of Rs.10,000/- was offered to the customer who are exchanging their old car and buying new car of Hyudai make. Complainant decided to exchange her husband’s Maruthi 800 car bearing No.KL-7-N-8560. The complainant alongwith her husband named Sivasankaran approached the first opposite party and made enquiry regarding the terms and conditions of the above said offer and she was assured by the 1^st opposite party that she will get the benefit of the above said offer if she is exchanging the Maruthi 800 car belonging to her husband. By getting assurance of the 1^st opposite party the complainant sold her car on 23/3/2008. This is evident from Ext.B4. Opposite party contents that the complainant is not entitled to get exchange bonus offer as her husband had sold her car on 23/3/2008 i.e. prior to the invoice of the new car i.e. on 23/4/2008. The 1^st clause of the Exchange Claim guidelines, Ext.B7, is “Exchange claim would be valid only if the car is transferred after new car purchase”. Complainant says that she was assured by the first opposite party that the complainant will get the benefit of the above said offer if the complainant is exchanging the Maruthi 800 car belonging to her husband. Complainant produced A1 document i.e. Undertaking for exchange bonus claim in which there is no such clause as “ the exchange claim would be valid only if the old car is transferred after new car purchase”

Further the complainant produced A2 document i.e. Exchange discount disbursement Annexure to booking form with an endorsement “received exchange bonus documents from the customer” and signed also. All these activities of the opposite parties made the complainant believe that she is entitled to get the exchange bonus offer. Moreover, the opposite party produced Ext.B1 document which includes exchange bonus claim guidelines stated that "exchange claim would be valid only if the old car is transferred 30 days before invoice confirmation date upto 75 days after invoice confirmation” According to the clause the complainant is entitled for getting exchange bonus as the complainant's husband had sold his old car on 23/3/2008 and new Hyundai car was booked on 15/4/2008. So the complainant is entitled to get the exchange bonus.

From the above discussion, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in disbursing the exchange bonus.

In the result complaint allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus offer and Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt order, failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of receipt order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of February 2011.

Sd/-

Seena H

President

Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of undertaking for exchange bonus claim

Ext.A2 – Copy of exchange discount disbursement Annexure 2 booking form

Ext.A3 – Copy of RC Book bearing Vehicle No.KL-7-N-8560

Ext.A4 – Copy of Proforma invoice

Ext.A5 – Copy of Cash receipt

Ext.A6 – Copy of Order booking form

Ext.A7 – Copy of Receipt issued by KTC Automobiles P.Ltd Pookunnam

Ext.A8 – Copy of letter dated 1/12/08 addressed to 2^nd OP

Ext.A9 – Postal receipt

Ext.A10 – Postal acknowledgement card.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Vehicle Booking Form

Ext.B2 – Paper cutting of Mathruboomi dated 11/4/08

Ext.B3 – Copy of Guidelines in Annexure 1

Ext.B4 – Copy of exchange discount disbursement Annexure to booking form

Ext.B5 – Copy of Certificate of Registration in Form No.23

Ext.B6 – Copy of Retail Invoice

Ext.B7 – Copy of Exchange claim

Ext.B8 – Annexure 3 Retail Invoice

Cost

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 19^th day of October 2009.

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. Member

C.C.No.20/2009

Thulasi.K.M

W/o. Sivasankaran

’Gokulam’, Manissery (P.O)

Ottappalam Taluk

Palakkad District - Complainant

(Adv. John John)

V/s

1. KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd

26/190(1) Vithunni Road

Palakkad

(Adv. P.G. Devadas & Adv.K. Sivadas)

2. KTC Hyundai

Poonkunnam

Thrissur District. Opposite parties

(Adv. P.G. Devadas & Adv.K. Sivadas)

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President

Opposite parties represented. Complainant no representation. Posted today as steps last chance. Even though Opposite parties furnished the address as per Order in IA 175/09, complainant has not taken any steps. Hence complaint dismissed for default.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of October 2009.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent