CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.219/09
Saturday the 30th day of April, 2011
Petitioner : P.J. Mathew,
Palathanathu Padavil,
Chackampuzha PO,
686574.
(Adv. Jose Sebastian)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) Managing Director,
Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,
A-30, Mohan Co-Operative
Industrial Estate, Madhura Road,
New Delhi-110044
2) The Manager,
M/s.MGF Motors Ltd.,
Near Pulimoodu Junction,
Kottayam 686 001.
(Adv.Karippaparambil Associates)
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased a Santro XL Car 2006 Model from the opposite parties on 30-06-2006. At that time an exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- was offered by the manufacturer on production of the registration certificate copy of the vehicle in possession. Hence the petitioner produced the copy of the registration certificate. But the 1st opposite party had repudiated the claim. The petitioner brought this matter to the knowledge of 2nd opposite party and they assured that he will arrange the payment to the petitioner as early as possible and the 2nd opposite party requested the petitioner to give some more time to make the payment. Taking that statement to be true, the petitioner waited for a period of more than two years. Quite recently the petitioner heard from the opposite parties that exchange bonus claim was repudiated and therefore the petitioner issued a lawyer’s notice demanding the payment. The opposite parties after receiving the lawyer’s notice also has not turned up to make the payment. The 2nd opposite party has immediately forwarded a document to M/s. Hyundai Motors Ltd and the documents and application of the petitioner was rejected by the manufacturer on the ground of suspicion of documents. There is no reason for any suspicion of the transfer of the vehicle and R.C. particulars. According to the complainant the rejection of a valid claim of the petitioner tantamount to deficiency in service. Hence he filed this complaint claiming the following reliefs.
i) Allow the petitioner to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as exchange bonus from the opposite party.
ii) Rs.6000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused by the opposite parties.
iii) 12% interest for the amounts shown in 1 and 2 relief
iv) Litigation cost and compensatory costs.
Notice was served to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed versions separately. 1st opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.
1)The complainant’s claim of exchange bonus was rejected as there was discrepancy in the transferred registration certificate of the complainant’s old car. The copy of the pages of the transferred registration certificate was not clear and unambiguous in as much as all the pages.
2) The contentions in the complaint are misconceived, frivolous and wrong. Complainant’s claim was rightfully rejected and therefore he is not entitled for the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- and compensation Rs. 6000/-.
Hence the 1st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs to them.
The 2nd opposite party filed version the following main contentions.
1) The complaint is hopelessly barred by law and hence to be dismissed.
2) 2nd opposite party as the dealer is only a channelising agency to facilitate the payment of exchange bonus prescribed by the manufacturer. The complainant has entrusted the documents pertaining to the old car and new car to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has immediately forwarded the documents to the 1st opposite party. The said documents and applications of the complainant were rejected by the 1st opposite party on the ground of suspicion of documents. With a view to help the complainant the 2nd opposite party once again forwarded the application of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
3) The complainant had issued a lawyer’s notice dated 14/2/09 claiming exchange bonus from the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party has issued a reply notice dated 23/4/09 clearly stating that the documents and application of the complainant were rejected by the manufacturer.
There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint and costs to them.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1 to B2.
Point No.1
Heard the counsels for both sides and perused documents placed on record. The opposite parties have a contention that the complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. But as the offered exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- is not paid by the opposite parties there is continuing cause of action. So in our view the complaint is maintainable.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had brought the Santro XL 2006 model car from the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that the exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid to the complainant by the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party averred that as a channelising agency it has forwarded all the entrusted documents to the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party further averred that the documents and application of the complainant was rejected by the manufacturer on the ground of suspicion of documents. But the opposite parties had failed to state the suspicion happened in the documents and application. If such a suspicion occurred the opposite parties might have informed the petitioner about the said suspicion. But no scrap of paper is placed on record to prove that such an intimation was made to the complainant stating the suspicion in the documents. The 2nd opposite party next averred that they forwarded the documents and application to the 1st opposite party once again. If the 1st opposite party clarified the suspicion to the complainant or to the 2nd opposite party then they could have rectified the said suspicion and has sent it properly. But such a chance was not given to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the 1st opposite party had repudiated the claim for exchange bonus on flimsy ground. As the 2nd opposite party has forwarded documents and applications in right time, no deficiency in service can be attributed against them. So in our view the 1st opposite party alone it’s deficient in their service and therefore liable to compensate the losses suffered by the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed. The 1st opposite party will pay the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2011
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant.
Ext.A1-copy of the documents invoice dtd 30/6/06
Ext.A2-Registration particulars
Ext.A3-Office copy of the advocate’s notice dtd 14/2/09
Ext.A4-Reply notice dtd 23/4/09
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.B2-Copy of the dealership agreement.
By order,
Senior Superintendent
