Complainant  :        M.Madhavan, Cene Artiste, Medath House, Pudurkkara,

                             Ayyanthole, Thrissur.

                             (ByAdv.Shrikumar Nambanath,   Thrissur)                   

Respondents    :    1. M/s.P.S.N.Motors (Automobiles) (P) Ltd.,

                                 T.C.22/1034/1,NH.47, Bye pass Nadathara, Thrissur,

                                 rep. by the Sales Manag

                             2. M/s.P.S.N.Automobiles (P) Ltd., 35/189, NH

                                 Palarivattom, Cochin.

                             (By Advs.P.Sanjay,Parvathi Menon.A & K.N.Sinimol)

                                                O R D E R

By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member

          The complainant’s case is that he saw a general offer of the respondents appeared in the Mathrubhumi daily  dated 17/9/2007 to the effect that an Eicher Truck is sold for Rs.10,001/-.  The complainant with money sufficient to pay the notified price, the  insurance premium,   registration charges and  incidentals approached the 1^st respondent to purchase the vehicle.  But the respondent was not ready to sell the vehicle for the price notified in the general offer.  He told that the price  notified in the general offer  forms part of the price and actual price comes to more than  5 lakhs and  that the general offer is made as a trade gimmic.  The complainant sent a notice to the 1^st respondent.  Though the notice was acknowledged no reply received from them.  Later the complainant received a reply from the 2^nd respondent stating that the complainant is an insensible person and the notice   is an imaginatory and concocted.  Being aggrieved by this the complainant filed the complaint for  getting the vehicle for the price notified in the general offer.

          2. The counter is as follows: The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has not  made any purchase from the opposite parties nor has any consideration passed on to the respondents.  It is  true that there was a general offer by the 1^st respondent which was published in Mathrubhumi daily on 17/9/2007.  But it was meant to solicit innocent and gullible buyers is untrue and hence denied.  The 2^nd respondent is the  parent company of the 1^st respondent.  So the reply notice is sent on behalf of 1^st respondent also.  And no  defamatory notice was sent by the respondents.

          3. Points for consideration are :

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

2) Is the complainant entitled to get the  vehicle as claimed ?

3) Other relies and costs ?

          4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibits R1 and R2.

          5. The complaint is filed to get the  Eicher Truck delivered for Rs.10,001/- the price notified in the general offer in the Mathrubhumi dated 17/9/2007.  The complainant claims that the advertisement published in the daily as a trade gimmic and it is an unfair trade practice.  The respondents questioned the maintainability of the complaint since the complainant has not   purchased anything from them and no consideration has been passed on to them.  The complaint is filed against the alleged unfair trade practice.  The respondents admitted that there was a general offer by the 1^st respondent which was published in the Mathrubhumi daily on 17/9/2007.  The complainant claims this as an unfair trade practice.  As per Section 2(1)  (r) (2) “unfair trade practice”  means a trade practice  which, for the purpose of  promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including the publication of any advertisement whether in any news paper or otherwise for the sale of supply a bargain price of goods or service that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price.  Hence the complaint comes under the purview of consumer dispute and it is found maintainable.

          6. The complaint is filed to gain the Eicher Truck for the price notified in the general offer published in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 17/9/2007.  Exhibit P1 is the disputed Mathrubhumi daily dated 17/9/2007 where in the impugned advertisement is published.  It is perused.   The advertisement is that  come with Rs.10,001/- and gain Eicher 10.95 Truck  At the  side of the advertisement there is also  seen in a very tiny letter that  ‘conditions apply’.  Nowhere in the advertisement it is stated that Rs.10,001/- is the 1^st instalment or part payment.   At the same time it is not  believable that a Eicher Truck is available for Rs.10,001/-.  So the  complainant has misunderstood the advertisement.  However the respondents cannot be evaded from  hiding the facts in the advertisement.

          7. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the complainant Rs.1,000/-  as compensation with costs Rs.300/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27^th   day of September 2011.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   M.S.Sasidharan, Member

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President    

                                                                             Sd/-  

                                                                   Rajani.P.S., Member               

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext. P1 Advertisement

Ext. P2 Copy of lawyer notice

Ext. P3 Postal acknowledgement

Ext. P4 Reply notice

Respondents Exhibits

Ext. R1  REsolution

Ext. R2  Copy of notice

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                                                          Member