IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.97/2017
Jobrun G.Varghese,
Aged 47 years,S/o Gee Varghese,
Residing at Varoor Veedu, : Complainant
Puthoor P.O., Kollam 691 507.
(By Adv.K.Y.Johnson)
V/s
Manager,
M/s Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd.,
Bye Pass Road,:Opposite Party
Palathara Junction, Kollam,Pin 691 010.
(By Adv.Jyothi Sagar)
FAIR ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
The opposite party on the 1st week of September 2016 through their sales Executive Mrs.Raseena offered a grand i-10 Asta Car to the complainant. After final discussions, the opposite party offered the above said vehicle for a total price of Rs.7,19,350/- inclusive of all overheads. According to the complainant the specific agreement between the complainant and the opposite party, that the opposite party will purchase the old car of the complainant bearing Reg.No.KL-02 E 7356 for Rs.12,000/- and will extend an exchange offer of Rs.33,000/-. So the complainant accepted the offer for sale of the new vehicle solely based on the above offer of purchase. The old vehicle was purchased by the
opposite party through their Shell company M/S Popular Motor Vehicle Pvt.company Ltd., on 28.09.2016 with the assistance of their own staff Mr.Sam Chandran . The complainant’s wife who had a sentimental approach towards the old car purchased the same for Rs.13,000/- on 28.09.2016. Relying on the assurance of the exchange bonus the complainant purchased the new car on 10.09.2016 bearing Engine No.G4LAGM 125261 and Chasis No.MALA851 CMGM490555 by paying the sum of Rs.7,19,350/- on 09.09.2016 through RTGS the vehicle was delivered on 10.09.2016 and later registered with No.KL 24.M 5002. In spite of repeated demands and contacts, opposite party was not willing to fulfill the promise assured of exchange offer 33,000/-. In this circumstances the complainant was constrained to issue notice to the Sales Executive and Manager of the opposite party, demanding to comply the offer. Sales Executive received the notice but the Manager purposefully evaded the notice. In this circumstances the complainant has faced much mental agony and monitory loss. There is willful negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation along with interest and costs.
The opposite party filed version by resisting the averments in the complaint and would content neither the opposite party nor the Sales Executive offered anything to the complainant and complainant alone had approached the opposite party for the purchase of i-10 Asta Car, that there were no discussions between the complainant as such the complainant approached the opposite party the Sales Executive, clarify the terms and conditions and convinced that vehicle will cost Rs.7,81010/- , without any hesitation the complainant has signed the booking order Forum after deducting the benefits which were endorse in it. The opposite party further contents that while clarifying the terms and conditions of the new car, the opposite party explained that if any old car is available it will be exchanged and the complaint will get the benefits of an exchange bonus of Rs.33,000/-, but the same was not offered by the complainant. According to opposite party the sale was completed without the exchange of old car and the complainant never made any request to sell old car. And approves the order booking forum. It is contented by the opposite party that even after the purchase of the new car the complainant never disclosed the fact of owning a old car, hence there is no question or offer or acceptance and strongly opposes that vehicle was not sold on exchange basis. According to opposite party the sale of the old car and the repurchased for the wife of the complainant is utter false and imaginary, and the new car was not purchased on any exchange of old one. Opposite party further contents that the complainant at the time of purchasing the new car the complainant has not raised any claim but after two months he made a claim which was rejected by the opposite party. According to the opposite party they provided best service to the customers. There is no deficiency or unfairness on the side of opposite party and pleads to dismiss the complaint.
In the light of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get exchange bonus of Rs.33,000/-?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party?
Evidence on the side of complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.P1 to P10. Ext.P1 is the delivery note issue from Popular Motor vehicles Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P2 is the RC particulars of old vehicle KL-24M-5002 . Ext.P3 is the purchase Memo issue from promise Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd., Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram dated 28.09.2016. Ext.P4 is the delivery note dated 28.09.2016. Ext.P5 is the notice issue by the complainant to the Sales Executive Popular, Hundai, Palathara, Kollam. Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 are postal receipts. Ext. P8 is the postal acknowledgement card. Ext.P9 is the returned notice with acknowledgement card. Ext.P10 is the certificate issued from Catholic Syrian Bank, Puthur Branch dated 24/07/2018.
Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence but got worked Ext.D1 and D2 documents.
Ext.D1 is copy of order booking form issued from Popular Motors Pvt.Ltd., Palathara, Kollam. Ext.D2 is retail invoice issued from Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd., Palathara, Kollam dated 19.09.2016 .
The learned counsel for the complainant has not filed any argument note. The counsel for the opposite party had filed notes of argument.
Heard both sides.
Point No.1 &2
For avoiding the repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together. The complainant would rely on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 documents to substantiate his the case. PW1 is the complainant in this case PW2 is the witness examined on the side of the complainant . It is to be pointed out that on 08.09.2016 the complainant approached the opposite party through Sales Executive Raseena for purchasing a brand new I 10 Asta Car After negotiation the price of car was fixed as Rs.719350. Accordingly complainant booked the above car on 08.09.2016 as per Ext.D1 order Booking form. The specific case of the complainant is that at the time of booking the car he revealed the fact that he intends to exchange the Maruthi 800 CC car and there upon the opposite party made an offer of Rs.33,000/- of exchange bonus. It is the further case of the complainant the opposite party agreed to purchase said Maruthi Car for Rs.12,000/-. According to the complainant on the belief that he would get exchange bonus Rs.33000/-, he purchased the brand new I 10 Asta Car. The above case of the complainant was totally denied by the opposite party. According to opposite party there was no discussion or undertaking regarding the exchange of Maruthi car or granting exchange bonus Ext.D1 is the order booking form where it is clearly stated that the complainant has booked the car for Rs.719350. The right hand portion of Ext.D1 order booking forum would contain several columns regarding deductions exchange bonus, discount etc.given to customer while booking the new car but no such deduction discount or exchange bonus is shown in any of the columns. It is further to be pointed out that Ext.D2 series are extract from retail invoice ledger account wherein it is clearly stated that the new vehicle was delivered on 19.09.2016 at about 3.23 pm. The extract of the ledger account in respect of vehicle sold is clearly stated when in also there is no mention of exchange bonus on pre-owned cars exchange value is also not seen stated. In the view of the above documents it is crystal clear that there was no understanding or undertaking to exchange the old Maruthi car while purchasing new grand I 10 Asta Car nor seen any endorsement regarding exchange bonus or exchange discount of pre owned car. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 would not probablise the case of the complainant. According to PW1 he was not the person who signed on Ext.D1 order booking forum if that be so there is no chance of making conversation regarding exchange offer while booking the car. PW2 has gone to the extent of Denying the case of the complainant in this regard. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 would indicate that the vehicle claimed to have exchanged is in the possession of complainant even today in this connection it is worth while to quote the relevant portions of evidence of PW2 in this regard ‘ ]gb amcpXn ImÀ Ct¸mgpw hmZn-bpsS ssIhiw Dv. Exchange sN¿p-Itbm hn¡p-Itbm sNbvXn-«n-Ã. The above admissions of PW2 who booked and taken delivery of the car from the opposite party would clearly indicate that there was no exchange of old Maruthi 800 C.C car when the new i-10 grand Asta Car was purchased.
It is further to be pointed out that According to PW2 he has gone to the opposite party’s institution 3 times. He went the first occasion at the opposite party’s institution for exchanging the old Maruthi 800 C.C car belongs to complainant and on the second occasion he went to take delivery of the new car. The above version of PW2 will clearly indicated that before taking delivery of the new car the complainant had exchanged the old Maruthi 800 C.C car but the oral evidence of PW2 and Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 documents would show otherwise. Ext.P3 is the purchase memo issued on the behalf of the Promise Popular Hyundai Pvt.Ltd who purchased the old Maruthi 800 C.C car of the complainant. The purchase memo would indicate that the said old Maruthi 800 C.C car was purchased from the complainant on 28.09.2016 which is 10 days after the alleged purchase of new brand i-10 Asta Car. Ext.P4 resale also taken place on the same date.
The learned counsel of opposite party would argue that no sale of old Maruthi car was taken place and Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 are fabricated documents and the same cannot be relied on even for a moment. It is to be pointed out that these two documents are not issued by the opposite party. As per P3 purchase memo Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd. is seen purchased the old Maruthi 800 C.C car belonged to the complainant and seen resold the same to wife of the complainant. Even if the above documents are believed in toto it will not help the case of the complainant since the sale of old Maruthi 800 car was sold on 28.09.2016 and admittedly new i-10 Asta car was purchased on 16.09.2016. In the circumstances we are not inclined to accept the claim of the complainant that the sale of old Maruthi 800 C.C car that was taken place on 28.09.2016 is not an exchange but it has been sold after 10 days of the purchase of new car which cannot at any stretch of imagination be considered as exchange Ext.D1 and Ext.D2 series documents would indicate that there was no understanding or agreement regarding the exchange of old Maruthi car while purchasing the new i-10 car.
In view of the reasons stated above it is clear that the complainant has miserably failed to establish that there was exchange of Maruthi 800 car when he purchased the new i-10 Asta car. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any exchange bonus.
In the circumstances we are inclined to hold that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice in connection with the sale of Brand new i-10 Asta Car. We find no merit in the complainant and the same is only to be dismissed. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of November 2019.
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/- S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:- Jobrun G.Varghese
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:- Lali
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1:- Delivery note issue from Popular Motor Vehicles
Ext.P2:- Copy of RC
Ext.P3:- Purchase memo dated 28.09.2016
Ext.P4:- Delivery note dated on 28.09.2016
Ext.P5:- Issue notice by the complainant to Sales Executive Popular Hundai, Palathara, Kollam
Ext.P6:- Postal receipts
Ext.P7:-Postal receipts
Ext.P8:-Postal acknowledgement card
Ext.P9:-Returned notice with AD card
Ext.P10:-Certificated issued from Catholic Syrian Bank, Puthur Branch dated 24.07.2018
Documents marked for the Opposite party
Ext.D1:- Copy of order booking form issued from Popular Motors Pvt.Ltd., Palathara, Kollam
Ext.D2:-Retail Invoice dated on 19.09.2016
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
