By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The case of the complainant is that the came to the notice of a general offer appeared on the Mathrubhoomi daily at 30th December under Bajaj Jackpot, Down payment Rs.3999/- with every sale a sure price. The complainant went over to the retail shop at Patturaikkal and met the salesman available thereto have the vehicle. He was told that there is no sales at Patturaikal and the entire sales have been shifted to Poonkunnam Sivakshethra Maidan in the form of a “Price Harvest”. So the complainant met the salesman at the kshethra maidan made the unconditional acceptance of the offer and tendered the cash amounting to Rs.4000/-. But the salesman was not ready to deliver the vehicle for the price notified in the general offer. The sales manager told the complainant that the general offer found in the Mathrubhoomi daily is a trade gimmick to hoodwink the general public. Being aggrieved by this the complainant sent a notice to the respondent. But there was no reply or remedy. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondent has denied the allegations levied against him in a version filed by him. He has stated therein that the complainant has misinterpreted the general offer. The general offer is subject to certain conditions. He has also stated that the complainant had never come to the retail shop or met the sales manager and tendered Rs.4000/-. Hence there is no chance for saying that the general offer was to hoodwink the public. So the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to have the Bajaj bike for the
price notified in the general offer?
(2) Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent?
(3) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 only.
5. Points: The complainant happened to see a general offer appeared in the Mathrubhoomi daily at 30th December under Bajaj Jackpot, Down payment Rs.3999/- with every sale a sure price. So the complainant met the salesman at the retail shop at Patturaickal. But he was told that there is no sales at Patturaickal and the entire sales have been shifted to Poonkunnam Sivakshethra Maidan in the form of “price harvest”. The complainant met the sales manager at the sivakshethra maidan and delivered his intention to buy the Bajaj bike for the price notified in the general offer. But the sales manager denied to deliver the vehicle. He told the complainant that the general offer is nothing but a trade gimmick to hoodwink the general public. The respondent denied all these and has stated that the complainant has misinterpreted the general offer. The general offer is subject to certain conditions. The respondent has also stated that the complainant has never approached the sales manager and tendered the cash. So there is no chance to say that the general offer only a trade gimmick.
6. Ext. P1 is the dispute Mathrubhoomi daily where in the impugned advertisement was published. On a perusal of the advertisement it is seen that Rs.3999/- is only a down payment. This does not mean that the Bajaj bike is on sale for Rs.3999/-. It is also seen on the side that conditions apply though it is in a very small letters. The complainant has also produced no evidence to prove that he met the sales manager and tendered Rs.4000/- as claimed by him. Hence it seems that the complainant has misinterpreted the advertisement.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 21st day of November 2011.
