IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                                  Dated this, the 19^th   day of  October 2009

CC.No.268/2008

Dr.K.M.Ramakrishnan

‘PRASHANTHI’,

 P.o.THIRUVANGAD,

 Thalassery 3.

 (Rep. by Adv.k.M.Pradeepnath)                      Complainant

1. Manager,

  KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd.,

   P.O.Chovva,

  Kannur

  (Rep. by Adv.M.K.Associates)                      Opposite parties

2. Mg. Director,

  KTC HYUNDAI,

  YMCA ROAD,

  Kozhikode

  (Rep. by Adv.Kauser Edappagath)

O R D E  R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10, 000/- as exchange bonus and Rs.5, 000/- as compensation.

            The case of the complainant in nutshell is as follows: Complainant booked one Hyundai Santro car, Model I XU paying Rs.2000/- on 13.7.2007. As per the order booking form several additional offers had been made by the opposite parties. Complainant paid Rs.3, 74,004/- by way of cheque and cash payment for insurance and other charges. Altogether complainant paid Rs.4, 10,575/- and delivery was taken from the office of 1^st opposite party. Opposite parties repeatedly promised that the additional offers made by them will be soon honoured. But even opposite party did not keep up their promises regarding the additional orders. The promise of the exchange bonus of

Rs.10, 000/- still remains unpaid. Complainant send letters to 1^st opposite party on 3.11.07for which there was no reply. On 17.7.2008 again sent letter to 1^st opposite party marking copy to 2^nd opposite party. This was also ignored. Complainant finally sent lawyer notice dt.6.9.09 demanding payment. Opposite party did not care to send reply for this also. Hence this complaint.

            Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The brief contents of the version as follows; the complainant had booked Hyundai Santro car through 1^st opposite party and 1st opposite party promised several additional offers along with the car. He had paid an amount of Rs.4, 10,575/- and car was delivered from 1st opposite party. But it is false to say that at the time of delivery opposite party promised that the additional offers made by them in the order booking form will be honoured soon. The allegation that the promise of exchange bonus of Rs.10, 000/- remains unpaid even after a year is false. There are certain conditions to be satisfied in order to avail the said bonus. One condition is that the customer has to sell his old vehicle to any person of his choice and produce the proof showing the ownership of his own vehicle.  Complainant never convinced the opposite party that he sold his old vehicle nor did he produce any document showing the transfer of ownership. Complainant submitted that he owned a Maruthi 800 car bearing No.RL.13.N.8087 and it is against the said vehicle he claim benefit. The complainant promised to produce the document but did not produce the same. The ownership still stands in his name on the RC book. It s still in his possession and ownership. The question of discharging bonus arises only when the condition is complied. At the delivery time itself the reason for non-payment of exchange claim had been informed. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

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

2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the relief as claimed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B3.

IssueNos.1 to 3

            Admittedly complainant had booked Hyundai Santro car through 1^st opposite party and there was several additional offers along with the car. Complainant paid

Rs.4, 10,575/- and took delivery. The complainant’s case is that as per the order booking form the opposite parties promised several additional offers along with the car. Ext.A1 gives details of offers given as FOC. Addl. Offers includes Rs.10, 000/- exchange bonus. Complainant’s specific case is that opposite party did not keep up their promises with respect to the additional offers. Some of the offers were satisfied after repeated reminders. But exchange bonus of Rs.10, 000/- remained unpaid. The contention of opposite party is that complainant is not entitled for exchange Bonus since he did not satisfy the conditions by producing the document showing the transfer of ownership of his old car. Ext.A1 proves that there is addition offer of Rs.10, 000/- Exchange bonus. Ext.A1 does not contain any condition any where to be satisfied in order to get the exchange bonus. Opposite party did not produce any documents to prove the condition that is necessary for the payment of exchange bonus. Opposite party failed to prove their condition that there are such conditions. A document that gives offers if lack conditions where from such conditions can be imported so as to create binding obligation on the part of complainant?

Anyone of the document produced by opposite party does not help to prove this contention of opposite party. More over complainant wrote two letters on 3.11.07 and the other on 17.7.2008 opposite party did not take pain to reply this letter which is nothing but deficiency in service. Ex.tA2 and A3 is letters requesting the opposite party to settle the issues. It is seen that the complainant had sent lawyer notice Ext.A4 dt.6.9.05 to opposite parties demanding payment. Ex.tA4 (a) and (b) proves that notice was issued to both the opposite parties. But both the opposite parties did not respond to this lawyer notice. This itself is  a deficiency in service and a sign of unfair trade practice. This is an unfair trade practice since opposite party made the offer with no intention to perform it. If an offer lacks intention to perform the same that amounts to unfair trade practice. The non reply of lawyer notice stands as a clear evidnce that the opposite parties did not have any intention to perform the additional offer made at the time of purchasing the car.

            The complainant herein also produced documents to prove that he had already sold and transferred his Maruthi 800 car bearing NO.K.C.13.N.8087 to one Muhammed. Ext.A7 is the registration particulars issued by Joint RTO, Kannur. The particulars shows that the name of regd. Owner Muhammad, Thailakkandy Puthan purayil, S/o.Musthafa. Hence it is clear that the contentions of opposite parties have no footing on facts of the case. The opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service that amounts to unfair trade practice. Therefore, we are of opinion that opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10, 000/- as the addition offer and also an amount of Rs.5, 000/- as compensation including cost of these proceedings. The issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay   

Rs.10, 000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only)  as the additional offer and an amount of

Rs.5,000/-/-(Rupees Five thousand only)   as compensation including cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall attract 10% interest on the entire amount due from 6.9.08 the date of lawyer notice Ext.A4 till realization of the amount. The complainant is also at liberty to execute the order in accordance with provisions of consumer protection act after the expiry of 30 days.

                                          Sd/-                            Sd/-                           Sd/-

                                    President                      Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.copy of the order booking form

A2.& A3.Copy of the letter dt.3.11.07 and17.7.08 sent to OP

A4.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A5.Receipt for Rs.2,50,000/- dt17.9.07

A6.Copy of registration particulars

A7.copy f registration particulars  regarding transfer of vehicle

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy f the registration particulars

B2.Copy of the guidelines of the exchange claim

B3.Copy of letter of authorisation

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1.Biju Mathew

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur