ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER This is a complaint for Rs.5000/- as exchange bonus offer and 50,000/- compensation and cost The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the nominee and purchaser of one Hyundai Santro XO [VJ]car under exchange offer for and on behalf and of his daughter . The first opp.party is the dealer cum manager of the branch office of the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties. The 2nd and 3rd opp.parties are the superior authorities of the 1st opp.party. The 2nd opp.party made an exchange offer for motor vehicles and issued order booking form produced herewith as item No.1. The complainant accepted this offer and submitted fill in form. As per the terms and conditions of the offer the complainant was at liberty to sell his vehicle Maruti Alto having registerNo.KL-01 A B 5008 and to submit the records of the sale for benefiting from the offer. Accordingly the complainant sold his vehicle, submitted the records of sale and requested for one Hyu8ndai Santro XO [VJ] under the said offer along with the booking form the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in cash as demanded by the first opp.party the first opp.party delivered the vehicle as demanded by the complainant after seeing that the complainant has complied with formalities set forth the opp.parties. But the offers were not carried out in time. On 26.9.2006 the complainant send an x-mail letter to the opp.parties detailing the grievances. The complainant got a reply to the letter dated 28.9.2006 Then again the complainant send an e-mail letter on 1.1.07 The complainant got a reply to this letter asking for address and contact phone numbers. As an impact of the continuous correspondents, the complaint got a cheque for Rs.4000/- which was offered as discount for UGC lecturers. But this time also the exchange offer of Rs.5000/- was kept aside. The complainant again send an e-mail letter on 28.5.07 reminding of the exchange offer of Rs.5000/- No reply to this letter On 4.6.07 and 11.6.07 again send two letter of same nature. On 12.6.07 the complainant got a reply asking again for details of vehicle The opp.parties did not take any action in the following two months. Hence the complaint. Opp.party 1 and 2 are filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant’s daughter has book a Santro XO [VJ] through the second opp.party’s office. At the time of booking the vehicle so many offers were given to the complainant. This offer was available to those who exchange any vehicle with Hundai vehicles or to sell the old vehicle and to purchase a new Hundai vehicle. In the above circumstances the customer shall produce the cop-y of the pre-owned vehicle records in the name of customers. In this case the complainant could not produce the RC particulars of her vehicle So she is not entitled to obtain the said offer. The opp.party handed over the Insurance cover note to the complainant before taking delivery. The Insurance Certificate could have given only when it was issued from the complaint The opp.parties handed over the insurance certificate to the complainant as soon as it was reached to them. This opp.parties parties have not made any exchange offer to the complain ant because he never purchased any vehicle from the opp.parties. The exchange offer given only to the person who exchange one’s old vehicle in his own name and only when he could claim that such offer. Here no vehicle records and not submitted by Smt. Janisha in her name so her claim was repudiated by this opp.party. Moreover at the time of purchasing the vehicle the company offered basic accessories and full insurance and a special discount to UGC/AITCE pattern college lectures. This opp.parties had given those packages. The special discount offer for UGC/AITCE granted by the company by verifying the papers and settled the claim. Hence the claim was already given Smt. Janisha never produced the necessary particulars of her pre-owned vehicle for getting exchange bonus. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. The 3rd opp.party filed version contending that the complainant is the owner of the car purchased from opp.party No.1 and 2. The car has been purchased by complainant’s dauther Mr. Janisha. The opp.party 1 and 2 are the authorized dealer of the opp.party No.3 ie the manufacturer. It is denied that the opp.party 1 is the branch office of opp.party 3The complainant’s daughter book a Santro Car with opp.party 1 on 9th May 2006 and the offer made by opp.party 1 at the time of book was full insurance basic accessories and exchange bonus of Rs.5000/- subject to certain terms and conditions. The complainant’s daughter was given full insurance, basic accessories as offered. However the exchange bonus was not given as the complainant’s daughter did not fulfilled the terms and conditions There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the 3rd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P20 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. POINTS: Complainant filed this complaint for getting exchange bonus from the opp.party in relation to the purchasing of one Hyundai Santro XO [VI] car under exchange offer with opp.parties. According to opp.parties 1 and 2 the exchange bonus will available only to those who exchange any vehicle with Hundai vehicles or to sell the old vehicle and purchase a new Hundai vehicle. Opp.party’s contention is that for getting the exchange bonus the claimant has to produce the New car Invoice New car Registration Certificate, old car Registration certificate before transfer in same name and address and old car Registration certificate after transfer. Here there is no dispute that the Registered owner of newly purchased car Hyundai Santro is Mrs.Janisha. Here the complainant sold his vehicle Maruti Alto having Reg.No. KL-01 AB508 and purchased Hundai Santro XO {VJ]. Opp.party’s version is that Smt. Janisha is not eligible for getting exchange bonus because she never produced the necessary particulars of her pre-owned vehicle. During cross examination of PW.1 deposed that Smt. Jasnisha has no prior ownership of any vehicle. Moreover on verifying Ext.P13 it can be seen that the owner of the sold vehicle Maruti Alto was the complainant. Hence the exchange bonus of Rs.5000/- cannot be given to the complainant’s daughter Smt. Janisha as he was not the owner of the sold vehicle ie she did not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the said offer. By considering the entire evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant’s daughter Smt. Janisha is not eligible to get the exchange bonus of Rs.5000/- from the opp.parties. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost. Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. - Abdu Shafi List of documents for the complainant P1. – prder npplomg fpr, P2. Letter dated 21.12.2007 P3. – Letter dated 13.6.07 P4. – Letter dated 17.12.07 P5. – Letter dated 18.12.2000 P6. – Letter dated 21.12.2007 P7. – Letter dated 4.6.07 P8. – Letter dated 6.10.07 P9. – Letter with courier receipt and post receipt P10. – Letter with postal receipt P11. – Formof notice of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle transfer[Form 20{ P12. - Part II for the use of transferee P13. – RC details P14. – Contract for sale P15. – Letter dated 1.1.07 P16. – Letter dated 5.1.07 P17. – Letter dated 3.4.07 P18. – Letter dated 28.5.07 P19. – Letter dated 11.6.07 P20. – Letter dated 12.6.07 List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. - Abhilash | 
