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. 25/2008 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant: Radhakrishnan Nair. T., 'SARIGAMA', Nilamel, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananhapuram.
Opposite parties: M/s. Cheran Automobiles, Cape Road, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. Ajith S. Nair) Hero Honda Company Ltd., New Delhi.
This O.P having been heard on 15..09..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant has purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the opposite parties on 4/11/2006. At that time he had joined a programme by name Passport Programme, under the pressure of the opposite parties. Under this programme the opposite parties offered the complainant one year accident insurance coverage and many gifts on the basis of points obtained by the complainant. At the time of entering into the programme a temporary document was given to him for entering the point as per the programme. The opposite parties assured the complainant that they will give the original passport within four weeks after submitting the application. But till the date the opposite parties did not issue the certificate. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties they misbehaved to him. Due to the deficient service of the opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer mental agony and financial loss, hence this complaint, for getting compensation for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs.
2. The opposite party, M/s. Cheran Automobiles filed their version contending the entire allegations against them. The main contentions of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. They also stated that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The company which has offered the programme has not been made as a party to the proceedings. The opposite party further submits that the complainant has not sustained any loss or damage as a consequence of joining the passport programme. The opposite party denied the allegations that the opposite party has not issued passport book and the allegation that the opposite party misbehaved to him is baseless. They stated that the complainant has not sustained any monetary loss or any mental agony as claimed by him. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW1. To prove his contentions the complainant has produced 5 documents.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii): In this case the complainant has produced 5 documents and the documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. Ext.P1 is the copy of Tax Invoice get at the time of purchasing the vehicle dated 4/11/2006. Ext.P2 is the photocopy of cash receipt voucher for HHPP member dated 4/11/2006, membership fee is Rs.125/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of temporary passport. Ext.P4 is the copy of postal receipts of notice sent by the complainant to the Hero Honda Company. Ext.P5 is the copy of registration certificate of the Hero Honda Motor cycle. In this case the opposite parties argued that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. As per the opposite parties, the programme is introduced by M/s. Hero Honda Motor Cycle with a view to provide certain gifts to the customers who become members of the programme and patronize the products of M/s. Hero Honda. In this case, the complainant has no case that any of the gifts assured to him as per the programme has not been provided to him. It is the only case that the passport book has not been provided to him. As per Ext.P2 the membership fee was collected by the dealer, Cheran Automobiles. It is specifically stated in the document that “If you don't receive your Hero Honda passport within 4 weeks, please get in touch with your dealer or the Hero Honda Passport Programme Centre. In this case the complainant approached the opposite parties several times to get the passport, but the opposite parties did not turn up to give it. The opposite parties had also issued notice to the Hero Honda Passport Programme Centre, New Delhi. The opposite parties cannot evade from their liability with lame excuses. It is the opposite parties who had received the amount from the complainant for this programme. Hence we find that the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In Ext.P3 document also it is noted that “please ensure you take your special gift after the first entry in the actual passport. From these documents we are of the view that the actual passport is the valid document to get the benefit under this passport programme. The complainant has been forced to take efforts to get the document. It is the duty of the opposite parties to issue the actual passport within 4 weeks. But they did not do so. The act of the opposite parties have caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence he has approached this Forum.
6. From the above said discussion we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. From the above said discussions we find that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case.
In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization.
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 30th day of September, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. S.K. SREELA,. MEMBER. ad.
CC. No. 25/2008
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : T. Radhakrishnan Nair
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of tax invoice No.6361 dated 4/11/2006 P2 : Copy of cash receipt voucher for HHPP number with receipt No.A.686859.
P3 : Copy of temporary passport P4 : Copy of postal receipt dated 3/11/2007 P5 : Copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No.KL- 01-AP-3601 Opposite parties' witness: NIL
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. 25/2008 Dated: 30..09..2009 Complainant: Radhakrishnan Nair. T., 'SARIGAMA', Nilamel, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananhapuram.
Opposite parties: M/s. Cheran Automobiles, Cape Road, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. Ajith S. Nair) Hero Honda Company Ltd., New Delhi.
This O.P having been heard on 15..09..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant has purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the opposite parties on 4/11/2006. At that time he had joined a programme by name Passport Programme, under the pressure of the opposite parties. Under this programme the opposite parties offered the complainant one year accident insurance coverage and many gifts on the basis of points obtained by the complainant. At the time of entering into the programme a temporary document was given to him for entering the point as per the programme. The opposite parties assured the complainant that they will give the original passport within four weeks after submitting the application. But till the date the opposite parties did not issue the certificate. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties they misbehaved to him. Due to the deficient service of the opposite parties, the complainant had to suffer mental agony and financial loss, hence this complaint, for getting compensation for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs.
2. The opposite party, M/s. Cheran Automobiles filed their version contending the entire allegations against them. The main contentions of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. They also stated that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The company which has offered the programme has not been made as a party to the proceedings. The opposite party further submits that the complainant has not sustained any loss or damage as a consequence of joining the passport programme. The opposite party denied the allegations that the opposite party has not issued passport book and the allegation that the opposite party misbehaved to him is baseless. They stated that the complainant has not sustained any monetary loss or any mental agony as claimed by him. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW1. To prove his contentions the complainant has produced 5 documents.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii): In this case the complainant has produced 5 documents and the documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. Ext.P1 is the copy of Tax Invoice get at the time of purchasing the vehicle dated 4/11/2006. Ext.P2 is the photocopy of cash receipt voucher for HHPP member dated 4/11/2006, membership fee is Rs.125/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of temporary passport. Ext.P4 is the copy of postal receipts of notice sent by the complainant to the Hero Honda Company. Ext.P5 is the copy of registration certificate of the Hero Honda Motor cycle. In this case the opposite parties argued that the complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties. As per the opposite parties, the programme is introduced by M/s. Hero Honda Motor Cycle with a view to provide certain gifts to the customers who become members of the programme and patronize the products of M/s. Hero Honda. In this case, the complainant has no case that any of the gifts assured to him as per the programme has not been provided to him. It is the only case that the passport book has not been provided to him. As per Ext.P2 the membership fee was collected by the dealer, Cheran Automobiles. It is specifically stated in the document that “If you don't receive your Hero Honda passport within 4 weeks, please get in touch with your dealer or the Hero Honda Passport Programme Centre. In this case the complainant approached the opposite parties several times to get the passport, but the opposite parties did not turn up to give it. The opposite parties had also issued notice to the Hero Honda Passport Programme Centre, New Delhi. The opposite parties cannot evade from their liability with lame excuses. It is the opposite parties who had received the amount from the complainant for this programme. Hence we find that the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In Ext.P3 document also it is noted that “please ensure you take your special gift after the first entry in the actual passport. From these documents we are of the view that the actual passport is the valid document to get the benefit under this passport programme. The complainant has been forced to take efforts to get the document. It is the duty of the opposite parties to issue the actual passport within 4 weeks. But they did not do so. The act of the opposite parties have caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence he has approached this Forum.
6. From the above said discussion we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. From the above said discussions we find that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case.
In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization.
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 30th day of September, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. S.K. SREELA,. MEMBER. ad.
CC. No. 25/2008
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : T. Radhakrishnan Nair
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of tax invoice No.6361 dated 4/11/2006 P2 : Copy of cash receipt voucher for HHPP number with receipt No.A.686859.
P3 : Copy of temporary passport P4 : Copy of postal receipt dated 3/11/2007 P5 : Copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No.KL- 01-AP-3601 Opposite parties' witness: NIL
Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
