IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 07.04.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.104/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Venugopal The Manager
Vilakkanari Madom R.F. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
C.M.C. 27 Skyline Gate Way Apartments
Cherthala Pathadippalam, Edappally, Kochi
(By Adv. Baiju. K.) (By Adv. Anil. S. Raj)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant purchased ‘Indica Vista’ car from the opposite party. The opposite party approached the complainant and offered an exchange bonus of Rs.35,000/-, if the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle after selling the complainant’s existing ‘Santro car’. The complainant so purchased ‘Indica Vista’ car from the opposite party solely for the opposite party offered the aforesaid exchange bonus to the complainant. Believing the opposite party’s tempting offer as to exchange bonus, the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party, and the opposite party issued a ‘commitment form’ to the complainant recording therein that the said exchange bonus would be made available to the complainant. Notwithstanding all these and the complainant’s repeated requests and demands, the opposite party has been disinclined to disburse the offered amount to the complainant. Consequently on 23rd December, 2013, the complainant was constrained to cause sending a legal notice to the opposite party which yielded no sort of response from the opposite party. What is more, the opposite party obtained specific amount from the complainant towards additional warranty, yet the same has not been issued to the complainant yet, the complainant fervently contends. The opposite party caused immeasurable agony and loss to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up before this Forum and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite party is that the opposite party has never made an exchange offer as claimed by the complainant. The opposite party offered exchange bonus of Rs.35,000/- on condition that complainant’s old vehicle should be sold out to the opposite party itself. According to the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled to the exchange offer as he had sold out his old vehicle to a third party. With regard to the extended warranty, the opposite party has delivered to the complainant the warranty policy bearing No.0790045583. The opposite party has not committed deficiency of service. The attempt of the complainant is to make illegal enrichment, the opposite party, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with exemplary cost, strongly contend.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Exts.A1 to A5- were marked. On the side of the opposite parties the affidavit of the Customer Relation Manager of the opposite party was filed, and the documents Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. As per the direction of the Forum document Ext.X1 was also marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously perused the complaint, version, testimonies and records placed on record by the parties. The complainant’s case is that the complainant has purchased ‘Indica Vista’ car from the opposite party. The opposite party had offered an exchange bonus of Rs.35,000/- as the complainant was selling his old vehicle to purchase the new car from the opposite party. However on going through the contentions of both parties, it appears that concededly the complainant purchased the car from the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has offered an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as exchange bonus. Now the bone of the contention is that whether the offer so made by the opposite party has been subjected to a particular condition viz. the complainant’s old car ought to have been sold out to the opposite party itself. With this question in mind we made a meticulous survey of the records made available to us with a surgeon’s precision. It seems that the opposite party has admitted that an offer as to exchange bonus has been made. That admission apart Ext.A1 document also amply evinces the same. Needless to say mere making contentions alone does not take the case of the party to its substantiation. To make it more clearly, it is to be noted that, the opposite party seemingly has not made any serious effort to establish whatever has been contended by the opposite party. With regard to the extended warranty similar is the case. Save putting forth an averment to the effect that an extended warranty had been issued to the complainant to prove the same nothing has been apparently let in. In this setting, the facts and materials being looked carefully into its entirety, we are of the strong view that the service of the opposite party is inevitably deficient. It goes without saying that the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. For the foregoing facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) the opposite party offered as exchange bonus. The opposite party is further directed to issue to the complainant the extended warranty policy forthwith. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 day of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation and cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
APPENDIX:-
Evidence of the Complainant:-
PW1 - Venugopal.G. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Commitment form
Ext.A2 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A3 - Lawyer’s notice dated 23.12.13
Ext.A4 - Bill dated 26.12.12
Ext.A5 - Bill dated 24.12.12
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Newton Joy (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Assessor report of RF Motors
Ext.B2 - Assessor report – Blank book
Ext.B3 - Copy of the Ledger account from 1.12.12 to 26.12.12
Ext.X1 - Email
/True copy//
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: pr/-
Compared by:-
