DATE OF FILING : 23.09.2009 BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.181/2009 Between Complainant : Anil John Abraham, Mattaplackal House, Ellumpuram P.O, Muttom, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian) And Opposite Parties : 1. MGF Motors Limited, MGF Autoplex, 34/338 E, Padivattom, Civil Line Road, Cochin – 682 024. (By Advs: George Cherian Karippaparambil & Shiji Joseph) 2. The Manager, Pulimoottil Auto Centre, Hyundai Authorised Service Centre, Pala Road, Thodupuzha – 685 584, Idukki District. 3. Hyundai Motor & India Limited, A-30, Mohan Cop. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (By Advs: A.Sukumar & V.M.Joymon) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant purchased a Santro Xing car bearing Reg.No.KL 35-5020, Chases No.MALAA 51 HR 7M 173997 and Engine No.G 4 HGIM 215417 from the Ist opposite party M/s.MGF Motors Limited, Palarivattom, Kochi who is the authorised dealer of the 3rd opposite party on 25.09.2007. The complainant obtained quotation for the purchase of the vehicle from the Ist opposite party on 2.07.2007. At the time of obtaining quotation, the Ist opposite party made an offer to the complainant that if the complainant sells his old vehicle by finding out a buyer and evidence produces, the opposite party will give an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Attracted by the offer, the complainant sold the old car owned bearing Reg.No.KL 7 AD 1652 on 11.08.2007 as per the sale agreement dated 11.08.2007 suffering a loss, expecting that this can be made up from the exchange bonus. On 30.08.2007 the complainant booked the vehicle by remitting an advance amount of Rs.5,000/-. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the exchange bonus would be given after getting it from the 2nd opposite party. Application for the exchange bonus was handed over by the complainant to the Ist opposite party with necessary papers. But the opposite parties have not turned up so far to grant the exchange bonus to the complainant. So this petition is filed for getting the bonus price offered by the opposite party and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, the petition is not having any territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer or the Ist opposite party, the dealer has no branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant has sold out his old car bearing Registration No.KL 7AD 1652 on 11.08.2009 suffering a loss is absolutely false and hence denied. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle on 25.09.2007 from the Ist opposite party. At the time of taking delivery, the Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the exchange bonus would be given after getting it from the 2nd opposite party is absolutely false. The Ist opposite party has no connection with the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is not the manufacturer of the Santro Xing car. The 3rd opposite party, who is the manufacturer is liable to pay the exchange bonus, provided, complainant satisfies the conditions, for exchange bonus prescribed by the 3rd opposite party. In order to satisfy the exchange bonus claim, the complainant ought to have sold his vehicle within 30 days prior to invoicing of new vehicle or within 60 days of invoicing of the new vehicle. In this case the complainant has sold his old vehicle on 11.08.2007 whereas the new vehicle was invoiced on 25.09.2007. Therefore the complainant does not satisfy the terms and conditions stipulated by the Hyundai Motor India Limited for claiming exchange bonus. This matter was informed to the complainant by the opposite party's representative Mr.Jose V.K. In order to satisfy the complainant, the claim of the complainant was forwarded to M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited. It was rejected by the 3rd opposite party because the complainant does not satisfy terms and conditions of the company. So the complainant is not entitled to get the bonus price Rs.10,000/- since he has not complied with the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme offered by the Hyundai Motor India limited. 3. The 2nd opposite party was absent and was called exparte.
4. The 3rd opposite party filed a written version wherein it is stated that the complainant was never entitled for the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- as the 3rd opposite party has not received any claim documents of transfer of old vehicle of the complainant from the concerned dealer till date, which is mandatory for granting exchange bonus claim amount. As per the exchange claim policy, the exchange claim would be valid only if the old car is transferred after the purchase of the new car. On 25.09.2007 the complainant purchased a new Hyundai Santro car. But the concerned dealer has not accepted any claim paper from the complainant as the said papers were incomplete and not in compliance with the norms set by the 3rd opposite party. As per the information available from the concerned dealer, the complainant transferred the old car one month before the invoice for the new car and therefore he was not eligible for the benefit of exchange bonus. The exchange bonus scheme is one of the promotional schemes launched by the 3rd opposite party from time to time. The 3rd opposite party has not received any documents pertaining to the exchange bonus scheme of the complainant till date. Error, omission or misrepresentation, if any, by the dealer concerned at the time of retail sale or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. The liability of the 3rd opposite party is limited and extends to fulfilling the warranty obligations alone. There is no cause of action against the 3rd opposite party. 2nd opposite party is not under the control of the 3rd opposite party as alleged. The 3rd opposite party operates on principal to principal basis with all its dealers and service centres. So the petition is not maintainable. 5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7(series) marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties. 7. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting the exchange bonus price Rs.10,000/- offered by the opposite party at the time of booking a new Santro Xing car. The complainant was examined as PW1. The copy of the quotation dated 2.07.2007 issued from the MGF Motors Limited for the new vehicle is marked as Ext.P1. The old vehicle of the complainant was sold by him before purchasing the new car and the copy of the agreement dated 11.08.2007 is marked as Ext.P2. The new vehicle was booked by PW1 by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 30.08.2007 attracted by the offer of the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the copy of the same. The vehicle was purchased on 25.09.2007 and the retail invoice of the vehicle dated 25.09.2007 is marked as Ext.P5. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the opposite party offered a bonus price of Rs.10,000/- and a letter was given by the complainant to the opposite party for requesting the offer, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P6. A registered letter dated 7.08.2009 was given to the Ist opposite party for getting the bonus price, copy of the same is Ext.P7(a) and Ext.P7(b) is the postal AD card for the same. The vehicle was booked at Ernakulam. The quotation was also received at Ernakulam. PW1 deposed that there is an authroised agency at Thodupuzha for the Ist opposite party and he serviced the vehicle there. The Sales Executive of the opposite party informed the complainant about the bonus price of the vehicle. No information for denying the claim was given by the 3rd opposite party. The copy of the RC book of the old vehicle and new vehicle were given at the Ist opposite party's office. The old vehicle was sold out before purchasing the new vehicle. As per the written version and cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the vehicle was purchased from the Ist opposite party from Kochi, the quotation for the purchase was also received at Kochi and there is no branch office for the opposite party in anywhere in Idukki District. The exchange bonus offer is availed for only those vehicles which are purchased within 30 days of the sale of the old vehicle or within 60 days of the invoice of the new vehicle. That was not done by the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for the bonus. No document for getting the bonus amount was produced by the complainant before the opposite party's office. Ext.R2 is the retail invoice of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. Ext.R3 is the copy of the dealership agreement of Hyundai Motors Limited, the 3rd opposite party with the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was purchased from the Ist opposite party's office at Kochi and invoice was also received from the Kochi office. The amount paid and delivery of the vehicle were also done at the Ist opposite party's office at Kochi. So there is no cause of action for the purchase of the vehicle has been taken place in Idukki district. The Ist opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the 3rd opposite party. As per Ext.R3 dealership agreement, the 2nd opposite party is only the authorised service centre of the 3rd opposite party and there is no business transaction done with the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. The complainant has serviced the vehicle at the 2nd opposite party's workshop because the 2nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the Ist opposite party. But no sale of the vehicle is done at the 2nd opposite party's office. No business transaction is done with the sale of the vehicle by the Ist and 3rd opposite party at the 2nd opposite party's office. So we think that the 2nd opposite party is not a branch office of the Ist and 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party is only conducting business in the name and style M/s.Pulimoottil Auto Centre in which the vehicle of the Ist opposite party are also servicing there. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that the 2nd opposite party is the branch office of the Ist or 3rd opposite parties. So the opposite parties is not having any branch office at Idukki district and the cause of action is not at all taken place at Idukki district. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties are not carrying on any business or not having a branch office, or personally works for gain and not actually and voluntarily resides in Idukki district. The cause of action is not wholly or partially never arised in Idukki district. So this case is not maintainable before this Forum and the complainant can file the petition before the appropriate Forum. Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2010 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Anil John Abraham On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Quotation dated 2.07.2007 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Vehicle Sale Agreement dated 11.08.2007 Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 30.08.2007 for Rs.5,000/- issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P4(series) - Photocopy of RC Book (8 pages) Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Retail Invoice dated 25.09.2007 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.P6 - Photocopy of complainant's letter dated 20.09.2008 addressed to the Ist opposite party Ext.P7 - Photocopy of registered letter dated 7.08.2009 issued by the complainant to the Ist opposite party Ext.P7(a) - Photocopy of AD Card On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Exchange Claim Guidelines Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Retail Invoice dated 25.09.2007 issued by the Ist opposite party Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Dealership Agreement of Hyundai Motors Limited
| | [HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member | | 
