DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 31 day of October 2011 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 20/12/2010 (C.C.No.174/2010) V.Sivadasan, (Canara Bank Asst.Manager) S/o.Sankarankutty Nair, Pramatha Cottage, Anamari, Erattakulam (PO) – 678 682 Anchumurthy, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.M.Raveendran) V/s 1.Manager, K.T.C.Automobiles (P) Ltd. C.M.Centre, Kozhikkode Byepass Road, Manali Junction, Palakkad. (By Adv.K.Sivadasan) 2. Manager, K.T.C.Automobiles (P) Ltd. Guruvayur Road, Poonkunnam, Thrissur – 680 002. (By Adv.K.Sivadasan) 3. Honda Motors India Ltd. Honda Motor Plaza No.1100-A-30 Operative Industrial Estate, Madhura Road, New Delhi. (Rep.by its Manager) - Opposite parties (By Adv.C.Madhavankutty) O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT Complaint in brief:- Induced by and advertisement published by the opposite parties in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 24/7/2009 complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro Car. As per the advertisement there was a ‘Big Savings for Bank Employees’ and when contacted it was informed that if the car was booked on 25/7/2009, the complainant being a bank employee will get a cash offer of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly the car was booked and the vehicle was delivered on 18/8/2009. All transactions with regard to the purchase of car was done by 1st opposite party. As per the request of 1st opposite party, photocopy of RC and Certificate showing that the complainant is a bank employee was also handed over to 1st opposite party. Complainant has so far not received the offer. When contacted 1st opposite party has stated that all the papers were sent to 3rd opposite party and the complainant will receive the amount soon. Though lawyer notice was issued, no reply was sent. Hence the complaint. Complainant claiming the offer amount alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2500/- being the cost of the proceedings. Contentions of opposite parties are as follows: 1st and 2nd opposite party has contented that the offer is made by 3rd opposite party, the manufacturing company. 1st and 2nd opposite party being the agents of the 3rd opposite party has no responsibility to pay the offer. 3rd opposite party on the other hand contented that the aspects of retail sale of the case is strictly inter-se between the dealer and the customer and the responsibility of the 3rd opposite party is restricted and limited to warranty obligations alone. 3rd opposite party has not received any communication with respect to the offer to the complainant from the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The relationship between 3rd opposite party and 1st and 2nd opposite party is on principal to principal basis and the whole responsibility with retail sales / services / repairs of the cars is upon the dealer. Further advertisement for promotional offers is published by the concerned dealer in their respective jurisdictions and hence the liability if any lies upon 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The evidence led by the complainant consisted of the chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A6. Opposite parties 1 & 2 also filed chief affidavit. Opposite party 3 has not filed any affidavit. Now the issues for consideration are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ? Issue 1 & 2 The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties failed to give the cash offer of Rs.25,000/- on the purchase of the vehicle as published in their advertisement. Opposite parties 1 & 2 is fastening the liability of publishing the advertisement and the offer made in it upon the 3rd opposite party, being the manufacturer of the vehicle. Where as according to 3rd opposite party, the relationship between the opposite parties 1 & 2 and 3rd opposite party is principal to principal basis and advertisement for promotional activities is made by the concerned dealer. Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. Ext.A1 shows that there was an offer published in Malayala Manorama Daily specific to the bank employees. Complainant has booked the vehicle on the prevalent date of offer is not seen disputed by any opposite parties. Ext.A.3 shows that the vehicle manufactured by 3rd opposite party was purchased from opposite parties 1 & 2. Complainant has repeatedly stating that he was offered a cash offer of Rs.25,000/-. In the advertisement it is only stated a ‘Big Savings Offer for Bank Employees’. None of the opposite parties has produced any document to show what was actually the ‘Big Savings Offer’. Hence on that point we believe the say of the complainant. Further none of the opposite parties has never raised a contention that the complainant has not complied any terms and conditions of the offer or the complainant is in any way ineligible for the offer. Hence there was a big saving offer and complainant is eligible for that offer seems to be an undisputed fact. So the next question to be decided is upon when the responsibility of fulfilling the offer lies ? It is born out from Ext.A1 that opposite parties 1 & 2 have published the said advertisement, since their name and address is seen in the advertisement. But whether the offer is actually given by the dealer or the manufacturer is not revealed by Ext.A1. For accepting the contention of opposite parties 1 & 2 that, 3rd opposite party being the manufacturer is liable for payment as per the offer, opposite parties 1 & 2 has to prove that the necessary documents produced by the complainant has been sent to 3rd opposite party for processing. No evidence to that effect produced by opposite parties 1 & 2. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that making an offer and non fulfillment of the same amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2. 3rd opposite party is exonerated from liability since deficiency in service on their part stands unproved. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) being the cash offer alongwith Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October 2011 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 - Advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily, dtd.24/7/09 Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Retail Invoice dtd.31/7/09 issued by 2nd Opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Sale Certificate issued by 2nd Opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 – Photocopy of letter issued by Secretary, Consumer Justice, Alathur to 2nd opposite party dated 10/11/10 Ext.A5 – Photocopy of postal acknowledgement card. Ext.A6 – Receipt dated 6/8/09 (original) issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant for Rs.2,69,000/-. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties Nil Cost allowed Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings. | 
