BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 277/2009 Filed on 16.10.2009

Dated : 31.05.2012

Complainant :

K. Radhakrishnan, T.C 6/768-1, Sreepadam, Arappura Nagar, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-13.

(By adv. P. Sajeev Kumar)

Opposite parties :

1. Manager, Sales, Popular Hyundai, K.J. Square, Near Karamana Bridge, Neeramakara, Thiruvananthapuram-40. (Dealer)

    

2. The Manager, Hyundai, HMI Marketing & Sales Office, A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

(By adv. R. Balakrishnan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 18.05.2012, the Forum on 31.05.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Hyundai i10 motor car manufactured by 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party on 17.08.2008, that at the time of sale, 1^st opposite party promised the complainant an exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- and corporate bonus of Rs. 2,000/-, that complainant has not received the said amount till date from the opposite parties even after furnishing the related papers and documents to the opposite parties, that complainant had e-mailed to 2^nd opposite party to remind of pending claim on 28^th February 2009 which was acknowledged with an assurance that complainant's concern will be redressed, that again complainant e-mailed to 2^nd opposite party on 21^st September 2009 and informed them that 1^st opposite party dealer refused to pay the exchange bonus and corporate bonus, that upon which 2^nd opposite party intimated the complainant that the claim had already been approved by head office and had directed the 1^st opposite party make payment immediately, that on 26^th September 2009 complainant along with his wife went to 1^st opposite party to get the money back, but 1^st opposite party did not respond positively to the customers. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- and corporate bonus of Rs. 2,000/- with 14% interest to the complainant along with compensation and costs.

1^st opposite party filed version contending interalia that complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party either in law or on facts, that for promotion of sales, manufacturers – M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. - gave some offers to some selected products like exchange bonus, corporate bonus etc. on the condition that the purchasers should duly submit the duly filled and signed applications prescribed for the same so as to claim such bonus within 120 days from the date of purchase of the new car. The acceptance and validity and veracity of the proofs submitted are to be decided by and at the discretion of the manufacturers. The offer of the 1^st opposite party was subject to the terms and conditions attached with the application form for bonus, that complainant had never filed any application for corporate bonus, that 1^st opposite party had paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards exchange bonus to the complainant through his son Mr. Sudeep on 02.01.2009 by the claim section staff of the 1^st opposite party viz; by one Swapna, for which Mr. Sudeep had issued receipt for the same. Though application for exchange bonus was belated, the 1^st opposite party strongly recommended to the manufacturer for allowing the same and the same was allowed by the manufacturer as recommended by the 1^st opposite party. The averment that complainant and his wife were ridiculed and humiliated by the staff of the 1^st opposite party is not correct. There is no deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2^nd opposite party has not turned up inspite of service of notice nor filed version. Hence 2^nd opposite party remained ex-parte.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to exchange bonus and corporate bonus with interest thereon?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts P1 to P7. From the side of the complainant two witnesses have been examined as PW2 and PW3. In rebuttal, Sales Manager of the 1^st opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant had purchased a Hyundai i10 motor car manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party, Reg. No. KL-01 AT 6060. It has been contended by the complainant that 1^st opposite party promised an exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- and corporate bonus of Rs. 2,000/-. According to complainant opposite party has never paid the said promised amount of Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant. Complainant's evidence consisted of oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of the certificate of registration. Ext. P2 is the receipt issued by 1^st opposite party stating that they have received corporate bonus documents on 17.12.2008 for the first time and they haven't passed any information regarding the misplacement of the document. Ext. P3 is the copy of e-mail regarding pending claims reimbursement for the month of August 2008 sent by the complainant. Ext. P4 is the copy of the e-mail dated 28.02.2009 to 2^nd opposite party by Sudeep Krishnan. 2^nd opposite party informed him on e-mail about the receipt of the e-mail. Ext. P5 is the e-mail dated September 29,2009 sent by Sudeep Krishnan, the son of the complainant stating that complainant has not yet received any of the benefits as advertised by the company/dealer, that if their grievance is not redressed within 15 days from the receipt of this, he will be constrained to move appropriate Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance. Ext. P6 is the e-mail dated September 25,2009 informing the sender that the claim has already been approved by head quarters and directed Biju John to issue the payments immediately. Ext. P7 is the letter dated 17.08.2008 sent by 1^st opposite party to complainant stating that he is eligible for corporate bonus on submission of the documents mentioned in the letter within two months from the date of delivery. Otherwise customer is not eligible for any claims. The very stand of the opposite party is that the amount of exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- was accepted by Sudeep Krishnan on behalf of his father/ complainant on 02.01.2009. According to complainant, 1^st opposite party never paid the said amount though it was directed by the 2^nd opposite party to pay immediately. Complainant and two witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW3. In his chief affidavit PW3, Sudeep Krishnan S/o K. Radhakrishnan, has stated that he has never received exchange bonus of Rs. 15,000/- from the 1^st opposite party as claimed in their version, that the receipt alleged to have been signed by him as Ext. D3 is a forged one. According to complainant the said receipt does not even have a revenue stamp on it and the signature therein is not the signature of PW3. PW3 has been cross examined by opposite party. In his cross examination PW3 has admitted that he has sent e-mail on behalf of his father to the manufacturer and the 2^nd opposite party sent e-mail to him stating that bonus has already been approved by head quarters by Ext. P6 and directed the 1^st opposite party to pay the bonus immediately. PW3 denied the suggestion put forth by the 1^st opposite party that one Swapna, the claim section staff of the 1^st opposite party handed over Rs. 15,000/- to him. PW3 denied the signature affixed in Ext. D3. According to PW3 1^st opposite party never paid any amount as approved by the 2^nd opposite party. PW3 has further deposed that he has never approached the 1^st opposite party after the purchase of the car from them. As PW3 has denied Ext. D3 document the burden shifts to opposite party to prove that they have paid exchange bonus and corporate bonus to the complainant as alleged in the version. There is no attempt from the side of the opposite party to examine the said Swapna of the claim section staff of the 1^st opposite party. Even though summons was issued to the witness Swapna, she has accepted the same but not turned up for giving evidence to show that PW3 has received the amount from her on behalf of complainant. No other steps taken by the opposite party to establish their stand that 1^st opposite party had paid Rs. 15,000/- towards exchange bonus to the complainant. We have compared the signature seen in Ext. D3 and signature given by PW3 in the deposition paper. On comparison of both signatures it is found that the signature seen in Ext. D3 is different from the signature given by PW3 before the court, thereby we are under the impression that PW3 has not received the amount from the 1^st opposite party and the document submitted by 1^st opposite party as Ext. D3 is a sham document. There is nothing on record to prove otherwise. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is entitled to get exchange bonus and corporate bonus of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite parties cannot bounce back from the offer. The action of the opposite party in not paying the offered amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant Rs. 15,000/- towards exchange bonus and Rs. 2,000/- towards corporate bonus with 8% interest from the date of complaint (i.e; 16.10.2009), along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of May 2012.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 277/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - K. Radhakrishnan

PW2 - Vijayachandran

PW3 - Sudeepkrishnan R.S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of certificate of registration

P2 - Receipt issued by 1^st opposite party

P3 - Copy of e-mail regarding pending claims sent by complainant.

P4 - Copy of e-mail dated 28.02.2009 to 2^nd opposite party by

Sudeepkrishnan.

P5 - E-mail dated September 29, 2009 sent by Sudeepkrishnan.

P6 - E-mail dated September 25,2009.

P7 - Letter dated 17.08.2008 sent by 1^st opposite party to

complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Biju John Cheriyan

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Terms and conditions for eligibility of claims.

D2 - Copy of voter identity card.

D3 - Receipt dated 02.01.2009 issued by Sudeep for Rs. 15,000/-.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb