BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 251/2007 Filed on 21..12..2007

Dated : 28..02..2009

Complainant:

B. Anil Kumar, KWA Quarters No.B-3, Maruthamkuzhy, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M. Abdul Jaffar)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s. Kulathungal Motors, (Tata Motors) Toll Junction, Chakkai By pass Road, Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Managing Director.

2. Ajay Pothan, Managing Partner ..do..

3. Asok Pothan ..do..

4. Asad Pothan ..do..

(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)

This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:

The facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant has purchased a car of Indica-URO-II-DLS, model from the opposite parties' firm on 6/2/2006, on payment of the price of Rs.3,73,300/- following the placement of purchase order on 25/1/2006. The delivery of the car was made to the complainant on 7/2/2006. The opposite parties declared an offer of Rs.31,000/- towards sales reduction, under the title “Best sellers at better prices” in respect of the sales of Indica URO-II-DLS-Car effected from 6/2/2006 to 21/2/2006. This offer was published by the firm in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 6/2/2006. Since the complainant has purchased the above said car on 6/2/2006 and has taken delivery on 7/2/2006, he is eligible to the sales reduction of Rs.31,000/- and the firm is bound to pay the same. The complainant further submits that the offer of sales reduction of Rs.31,000/- has come to his knowledge only after he had purchased the car. Therefore the complainant has subsequently approached the opposite parties and requested for arranging the payment of sales reduction offered by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not turn up to pay the amount. As per the complainant the act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficient service of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

2. Opposite parties Kulathunkal Motors filed their version contending the claim of the complainant. They submitted that for sale promotional purposes the opposite parties formulate schemes and advertises in the media from time to time. Like wise the opposite parties along with ICICI bank had advertised in the newspapers on 6/2/2006 that any person buying any car between 6^th to 21^st February 2006 would get monetory benefit respectively depending on the model. They stated that such kind of schemes are done in tie up with some financing company and in the case it was done with ICICI car loan section which is clearly mentioned in the advertisements. And accordingly all persons who have purchased car during the said period were given the said benefit. And also the opposite parties stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party since ICICI bank is also a necessary party to the complaint. The opposite parties further stated that in this case the complainant booked the vehicle on 25/1/2006 and the vehicle was invoiced in the name of the complainant on 31/1/2006. And, therefore the offer is not applicable to the complainant. And also the opposite parties stated that the complainant was given lot of other benefits that was applicable to him when he purchased the vehicle. And they further submitted that the complainant approached them after more than one year after the purchase date ie.on 2/6/2007. As per the opposite parties there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from their part. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1 and the opposite parties cross examined him. The complainant has produced 9 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence.

4. Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?

5. Point No.(i) : In this case the complainant has produced 9 documents to support his case. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the order booking Form dated 25/1/2006 signed by both the parties. As per this document the price of the vehicle is seen as Rs.3,73,300/-. As per this document the complainant had agreed to purchase the vehicle for the above said amount. Ext.P2 is the copy of the vehicle release order dated 7/2/2006. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle on that date. Ext.P3 is the copy of invoice dated 31/1/2006. The actual date of purchase is 31/1/2006. Ext.P4 is the copy of Ex-show room price list. Ext. P5 is the Manorama Paper cutting dated 6/2/2006, through which the opposite parties published the offer that buy any Tata car between 6^th to 21^st February 2006 and get benefits up to Rs.55,000/-. In this document we can see that the opposite parties offered Rs.31,000/- for Indica car and also we can find that ICICI bank and Kulathunkal Motors jointly published this advertisement. Exts. P6 to P9 are the notices and replies issued by both the parties.

6. In this case the main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is that they did not give the offer as published in the newspapers. But in this case the complainant had approached the opposite parties and purchased the vehicle before he saw the advertisement in the newspaper. At the time of purchasing the vehicle he had no knowledge about the offer, he agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,73,300/- and he paid the same on 31/1/2006. At the time of cross examination complainant stated that, “Invoice Ext.P3-ല്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് free ആയിട്ട് എന്തെങ്കിലും തരാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ? (Q) ഇല്ല (A) Free ആയി തരാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങളെല്ലാം എനിക്കു തന്നു. നിങ്ങള്‍ വാഹനംboo boobookചെയ്തപ്പോള്‍ Ext.P5 advertisement നെപ്പറ്റി നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അറിയാമായിരുന്നോ? (Q) അറിയില്ലായിരുന്നു. (A). From this deposition we can find that there is no unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties for the offer after one year from the date of purchase. In this case the actual date of purchase was 31/1/2006. The offer was from 6/2/2006. Hence the complainant is not eligible to get the benefit under this scheme.

Point Nos. (ii) & (iii) : The opposite parties argued that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In this case the advertisement was jointly published by the ICICI bank and the Kulathunkal Motors. The financier of the complainant is ICICI bank. Hence the ICICI bank is one of the necessary parties in this case. But the complainant has not made the ICICI Bank as one of the parties. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of party also.

From the above mentioned discussion we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No 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 28^th day of February, 2009.

BEENA KUMARI.A

MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.251/2007

APPENDIX

1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : B. Anil Kumar

2. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Purchase order form dated 25/1/2006

P2 : Copy of New vehicle release order dated 7/2/2006 issued by 1^st opp. Party

P3 : Copy of invoice No.1846 dated 31/1/2006

P4 : Copy of Ex Showroom price list for TATA passenger cars issued by 1^st opp. Party

P5 : Malayala Manorama daily newspaper cutting dt. 6/2/2006

P6 : Copy of legal notice dated 2/6/2007 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P7 : Acknowledgment card dt. 9/6/2007

P8 : Reply notice dated 12/6/2007

P9 : Copy of letter dated 18/8/2007 issued to the Sales Satisfaction Manager of opposite parties.

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

3. Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT

ad.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

C.C. No: 251/2007 Filed on 21..12..2007


 

Dated : 28..02..2009


 

Complainant:


 

B. Anil Kumar, KWA Quarters No.B-3, Maruthamkuzhy, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

(By Adv. M. Abdul Jaffar)


 

Opposite parties:


 

1. M/s. Kulathungal Motors, (Tata Motors) Toll Junction, Chakkai By pass Road, Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Managing Director.

2. Ajay Pothan, Managing Partner ..do..

3. Asok Pothan ..do..

4. Asad Pothan ..do..

 

(By Adv. Nair Ajay Krishnan)


 


 

This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:


 


 

ORDER


 

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:


 

The facts of the case are as follows:


 

The complainant has purchased a car of Indica-URO-II-DLS, model from the opposite parties' firm on 6/2/2006, on payment of the price of Rs.3,73,300/- following the placement of purchase order on 25/1/2006. The delivery of the car was made to the complainant on 7/2/2006. The opposite parties declared an offer of Rs.31,000/- towards sales reduction, under the title “Best sellers at better prices” in respect of the sales of Indica URO-II-DLS-Car effected from 6/2/2006 to 21/2/2006. This offer was published by the firm in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 6/2/2006. Since the complainant has purchased the above said car on 6/2/2006 and has taken delivery on 7/2/2006, he is eligible to the sales reduction of Rs.31,000/- and the firm is bound to pay the same. The complainant further submits that the offer of sales reduction of Rs.31,000/- has come to his knowledge only after he had purchased the car. Therefore the complainant has subsequently approached the opposite parties and requested for arranging the payment of sales reduction offered by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties did not turn up to pay the amount. As per the complainant the act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficient service of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.


 

2. Opposite parties Kulathunkal Motors filed their version contending the claim of the complainant. They submitted that for sale promotional purposes the opposite parties formulate schemes and advertises in the media from time to time. Like wise the opposite parties along with ICICI bank had advertised in the newspapers on 6/2/2006 that any person buying any car between 6^th to 21^st February 2006 would get monetory benefit respectively depending on the model. They stated that such kind of schemes are done in tie up with some financing company and in the case it was done with ICICI car loan section which is clearly mentioned in the advertisements. And accordingly all persons who have purchased car during the said period were given the said benefit. And also the opposite parties stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party since ICICI bank is also a necessary party to the complaint. The opposite parties further stated that in this case the complainant booked the vehicle on 25/1/2006 and the vehicle was invoiced in the name of the complainant on 31/1/2006. And, therefore the offer is not applicable to the complainant. And also the opposite parties stated that the complainant was given lot of other benefits that was applicable to him when he purchased the vehicle. And they further submitted that the complainant approached them after more than one year after the purchase date ie.on 2/6/2007. As per the opposite parties there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from their part. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. In this case the complainant filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1 and the opposite parties cross examined him. The complainant has produced 9 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence.


 

4. Points that would arise for consideration are:


 

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?


 

5. Point No.(i) : In this case the complainant has produced 9 documents to support his case. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the order booking Form dated 25/1/2006 signed by both the parties. As per this document the price of the vehicle is seen as Rs.3,73,300/-. As per this document the complainant had agreed to purchase the vehicle for the above said amount. Ext.P2 is the copy of the vehicle release order dated 7/2/2006. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle on that date. Ext.P3 is the copy of invoice dated 31/1/2006. The actual date of purchase is 31/1/2006. Ext.P4 is the copy of Ex-show room price list. Ext. P5 is the Manorama Paper cutting dated 6/2/2006, through which the opposite parties published the offer that buy any Tata car between 6^th to 21^st February 2006 and get benefits up to Rs.55,000/-. In this document we can see that the opposite parties offered Rs.31,000/- for Indica car and also we can find that ICICI bank and Kulathunkal Motors jointly published this advertisement. Exts. P6 to P9 are the notices and replies issued by both the parties.


 

6. In this case the main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is that they did not give the offer as published in the newspapers. But in this case the complainant had approached the opposite parties and purchased the vehicle before he saw the advertisement in the newspaper. At the time of purchasing the vehicle he had no knowledge about the offer, he agreed to pay the amount of Rs.3,73,300/- and he paid the same on 31/1/2006. At the time of cross examination complainant stated that, “Invoice Ext.P3-ല്‍ നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് free ആയിട്ട് എന്തെങ്കിലും തരാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടോ? (Q) ഇല്ല (A) Free ആയി തരാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ കാര്യങ്ങളെല്ലാം എനിക്കു തന്നു. നിങ്ങള്‍ വാഹനംboo boobookചെയ്തപ്പോള്‍ Ext.P5 advertisement നെപ്പറ്റി നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അറിയാമായിരുന്നോ? (Q) അറിയില്ലായിരുന്നു. (A). From this deposition we can find that there is no unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties for the offer after one year from the date of purchase. In this case the actual date of purchase was 31/1/2006. The offer was from 6/2/2006. Hence the complainant is not eligible to get the benefit under this scheme.


 

Point Nos. (ii) & (iii) : The opposite parties argued that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In this case the advertisement was jointly published by the ICICI bank and the Kulathunkal Motors. The financier of the complainant is ICICI bank. Hence the ICICI bank is one of the necessary parties in this case. But the complainant has not made the ICICI Bank as one of the parties. Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of party also.


 

From the above mentioned discussion we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No 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 28^th day of February, 2009.


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A

MEMBER.


 


 


 

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 

ad.


 


 


 

C.C.No.251/2007

APPENDIX


 

1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : B. Anil Kumar

2. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Purchase order form dated 25/1/2006

P2 : Copy of New vehicle release order dated 7/2/2006 issued by 1^st opp. Party

P3 : Copy of invoice No.1846 dated 31/1/2006

P4 : Copy of Ex Showroom price list for TATA passenger cars issued by 1^st opp. Party

P5 : Malayala Manorama daily newspaper cutting dt. 6/2/2006

P6 : Copy of legal notice dated 2/6/2007 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.

P7 : Acknowledgment card dt. 9/6/2007

P8 : Reply notice dated 12/6/2007

P9 : Copy of letter dated 18/8/2007 issued to the Sales Satisfaction Manager of opposite parties.


 

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL


 

3. Opposite parties documents : NIL


 


 


 

PRESIDENT