CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No. 137/2008 Thursday, the 29th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : P.J. Joseph, Pandarakappil House, Muttuchira P.O Kottayam. (By Adv. Jose Joseph) Opposite parties : 1) The Manager, MGF House, Pulimoottil Junction, Kottayam. (By Adv. Sheeba Tharakan & N.P Muhammed Nizar) 2) The Manager, MGF Motors Ltd., Thampys Building MG Road, Cochin . (By Adv. Sheeba Tharakan & N.P Muhammed Nizar) 2) The Manager, MGF Motors,Auto Plex,
Padivattam, Cochin. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petition is for getting compensation for non payment of Exchange Bonus offered by the opposite party, at the time of purchase of a Santro Car. Petitioner purchased a Santro car from first opposite party on 30..6..2006. At the time of booking opposite parties offered Exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- and Corporate bonus of Rs. 5,000/- According to the petitioner opposite party made believe the petitioner that they are ready to give Exchange bonus and Corporate bonus to the -2- petitioner. Petitioner raised his claim for the bonus on the same date of purchase itself, he submitted all document demanded by the opposite party within 3 weeks. Opposite party agreed to give Exchange bonus within six months there after the petitioner contacted the Kottayam office of opposite party regularly they informed the petitioner that papers are under process . Since there was no response on the part of the first opposite party petitioner contacted the second opposite party on 3..5..2007. Second opposite party replied stating that document submitted by the petitioner were insufficient for releasing the Exchange Bonus. Petitioner states that he had submitted copy of the old car RC transferred in the name of a new buyer. Petitioner states that even though opposite parties offered a Corporate bonus of Rs. 5,000/- they paid only Rs. 4,000/- with a delay of one year. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not giving Exchange Bonus and Corporate bonus is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite parties to give the petitioner an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- as Corporate Bonus along with the offered amount of Rs. 10,000/- as Exchange Bonus. He also claims cost and compensation. Opposite party 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. 4th opposite party was imp leaded as per order in I.A No. 621/09 Dtd: 17..8..2008. But the 4th opposite party has not entered appearance or filed version. So, 4th opposite party was set ex-parte. Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party 1 to 3 Forum has no -3- jurisdiction to try the complaint and further more . Petitioner is not a consumer. Petition is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. Opposite party admitted the purchase of Hyundai Santro Car through first opposite party on 29..6..2006 by paying an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance. First opposite party offered free insurance for Rs. 12,457/-, basic fittings worth Rs. 650/-, and informed petitioner that Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Offered Exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/-. To avail the exchange offer petitioner had to sell his car to a 3rd party and produce copy of the RC of old car in his name. Copy of the new car invoice and copy of the new RC and the RC of the old car had to be submitted within six months of purchase of new the car. According to the opposite party all the conditions for availing the bonus were told to the petitioner at the time of receiving the advance and the petitioner, who is an educated person understood the matters and signed the order booking form on 26..6..2006, understanding the terms and conditions of the booking and sale. Subsequently the first opposite party informed the petitioner that Hyundai motors India Ltd. offered to give Corporate Bonus of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner who was a government employee at that time, and also offered fog lamp worth Rs. 3,000/- free of cost to the petitioner. Exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- and Corporate Bonus of Rs. 3,000/- are being paid by Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and not by the opposite parties. If the first opposite party receives the required documents from the customer, documents have sent to Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Through 3rd opposite party. On receipt of the required documents the Hyundai Motors India Ltd., credits the amount to the account of the 3rd opposite -4- party and intimates the 3rd opposite party about the transfer. 3rd opposite party will issue Cheque for the bonus amount to the customer as and when received by it. Opposite party submitted that petitioner had not produced copy of the RC of old car transferred in the name of the transferee within six months of the purchase of the vehicle from the first opposite party. Since petitioner has not produce the documents the first opposite party cannot sent the document to the 4th opposite party. So the petitioner has lost the Exchange bonus offered. Opposite party denied the allegation in the petition that the first opposite party offered Corporate Bonus of Rs. 5,000/- . According to them the bonus offered was only Rs. 4,000/- On receipt of the document for Corporate bonus first opposite party sent the requisition to Hyundai Motors and on receipt of the bonus first opposite party issued a Cheque for Rs. 4,000/-. According to the opposite party the other allegation of the petitioners are false they contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: 1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Reliefs and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A9 documents of the side of the petitioner. -5- Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not received the agreed Exchange Bonus of Rs. 10,000/- and Corporate Bonus of Rs. 5,000/- Even though the petitioner had a definite case that opposite party offered a Corporate Bonus of Rs. 5,000/- . Petitioner had not produced any document to prove that opposite parties offered a Corporate Bonus of Rs. 5,000/-. Opposite party admitted that they offered a Corporate Bonus of Rs. 4,000/- and paid the same as on 4..6..2007. Petitioner produced order booking form said document is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 it was hand written that there is an Exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/-. Opposite party contented that in order to get the Exchange bonus petitioner had to sell his car to a 3rd party and produce RC of the old car transferred in the name, of the transferee and copy of new car invoice and copy of new RC shall be submitted to opposite party within six months of purchasing the car. Admittedly petitioner purchased the car on 29..6..2006. According to the opposite party the terms and conditions for getting the Exchange bonus were told to the petitioner at the time of receiving advance amount. Petitioner being an educated person understood the matters and signed the order booking form. Even though the opposite party has a definite case that the conditions for availing the bonus were told to the petitioner but they have not produce any document to prove that the terms and conditions were informed to the petitioner. Further more, opposite party have not produce any evidence to prove the conditions made by the Hyundai Motors India Ltd. with regard to the issuance of the Exchange bonus and Corporate bonus. In our view opposite partys, for the purpose of promoting sale adopted unfair method by making statement to give bonus to a consumer without intimating him about the rules and conditions for getting the bonus is an unfair trade practice. As a dealer of the 4th opposite party first opposite party is a bounden duty to intimate the consumer about the terms and conditions in black and white. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. -6- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1,petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for. In the result the first opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the adopting the deceptive practice. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. If the order is not complied within the time stipulated petitioner is entitled for 9% future interest for the award amount. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Order booking form Dtd: 26..6..2006. Ext. A2: Invoice Dtd: 30..6..2006 Ext. A3: Copy of sale agreement Dtd: 27..8..2006 Ext. A4: Copy of RC book of vehicle bearing registration No. KLL 9273. Ext. A5: Copy of RC Book. Ext. A6: Copy of the letter Dtd: 1..6..2007 issued by the opposite party to the petitioner. Ext. A7: Copy of letter Dtd: 1..11..2007 from the petitioner to the opposite party. Ext. A8: Copy of the lawyers notice Dtd: 14..2..2008 Ext. A9: Copy of the reply notice Dtd: 17..3..2008. Document for the Opposite party Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 6 cs.
| | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
