BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 221/2011 Filed on 30.06.2011
Dated: 30.11.2013
Complainant:
S. Madhukumar, ‘Anupama’, T.C 1/1460(1), H-6, Pothujanam Road, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.
(By adv. G. Gopinathan Nair)
Opposite party:
M/s Hilton Hyundai, ‘Zion’, T.C 36/58(6), NH Byepass Road, Eanchackal, Thiruvananthapuram-695 008.
(By adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai))
This C.C having been heard on 21.11.2013, the Forum on 30.11.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a new i10 Magna 1.2 HD car from the opposite party as per Bill No. 1234 dated 07.11.2009 on exchange with his 1989 model Maruthi 800. At the time of booking opposite party had offered him exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- and corporate offer of Rs. 6,000/-. The old car was exchanged through M/s Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd. on 28.09.2009 as arranged by the opposite party. On the date of delivery of the vehicle itself, the complainant had submitted all the required documents for obtaining the offer benefits. But he oppsotie party has not paid the said amount of Rs. 21,000/- till date in spite of repeated demand from the complainant. Moreover opposite party has been making false statements without any intent to effect payment as promised. The complainant sent advocate notice to the opposite party, but there was no reply from their side. A copy of said notice was also sent to the Delhi address of Hyundai company provided by the opposite party which has been returned undelivered. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 21,000/- with 8% interest per annum from 07.12.2009 till the realization of the amount, Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.
The opposite party filed version stating that a benefit of deduction of Rs. 15,000/- is given subject to various terms. The buyer of the car should own a car, sell his old car and produce copy of old RC Book showing details of new ownership and new R.C Book to be submitted within 60 days from the date of delivery. The offers are made by the manufacturer and not by opposite party and the manufacturer was not impleaded by the complainant in the party array. The exchange offer is granted by the manufacturer on terms and will be paid only on strict compliance of the terms by the customer and processed by manufacturer. In this case the complainant failed to comply the same and hence he is not entitled for getting the benefits. The complainant has sold the vehicle through a third party and that party is not a party in the complaint. As the claims were not made in time as per the terms, the claim was refused by the manufacturer and dealer could not give the benefits. The sanctions as well as payment has to come from manufacturer. The notice was not delivered to the opposite party and the complainant is aware of the fact that the manufacturer is solely responsible for the payment of exchange offer and corporate offer. This opposite party could not pay the offer because complainant failed to comply the terms and so the manufacturer rejected the claim due to non-compliance and this caused the opposite party to refuse the same. Hence complainant is not entitled to any claim as put forth and only to be dismissed with costs to opposite party.
Complainant filed affidavit and 7 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P7. He was also cross examined by opposite party. Sales head of the opposite party filed affidavit and he was cross examined.
The issues that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle from the opposite party and at the time of booking of the new vehicle opposite party had offered him an exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- and a corporate offer of Rs. 6,000/-. The opposite party admitted the purchase of new car and their contention is with regard to the offers. The complainant produced Ext. P3 to show that the old car was exchanged through Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., and the arrangements for that was made by the opposite party. But in Ext. P3 it is not stated anywhere that they had a relation with the opposite party and moreover at the time of cross examination, DW1 has denied any connection of the opposite party with M/s Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd. In page 6 of deposition of PW1 also he stated that the above said company and opposite party are different establishments. The contention raised by the opposite party regarding offer is that the benefit of deduction is subject to various terms and that was mentioned in Ext. P2 document. The opposite party further contended that the offers are given by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. But here the manufacturer is not made a party to the complaint even after the contention raised by the opposite party in their version. Moreover the complainant did not produce any document to substantiate his case. The contention raised by opposite party is that the conditions of the offer are not fulfilled by the complainant. Ext. P3 document cannot prove his case, as it is only a delivery note from M/s Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd. and it does not mean that all documents are handed over to opposite party. While cross examining PW1 in page 8 of the deposition he stated thus “manufacturer നിങ്ങൾക്ക് തന്ന offer dealer മാറ്റി മറിച്ചതാണ് എന്ന് നിങ്ങൾക്ക് case ഉണ്ടോ (Q) എനിക്കറിയില്ല. (A) താങ്കൾക്ക് dealer തരാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ എന്തെല്ലാം offer കിട്ടി (Q) seat cover, CD player കിട്ടി 1st insurance കിട്ടി (A). So it is clear that the complainant got all the offers from the opposite party and he did not add that the opposite party did not give any offer assured by them. The judgment produced by the complainant is not seen relevant in this context. Hence considering the overall situations we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any benefits as sought for. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed and it is done so accordingly.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order for costs.
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, on this the 30th day of November 2013.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 221/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Madhukumar. S
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of vehicle sale bill dated 07.11.2009 issued by opposite party.
P2 - copy of letter dated 01.12.2009 issued by O.P to complainant.
P3 - Copy of delivery note dated 28.09.2009 issued by Mahindra First
Choice Wheels Ltd., Karamana.
P4 - Copy of identity card issued by Medical College, Tvpm.
P5 - Copy of pay/leave salary slip dated 22.05.2009 issued by Accountant
General (A&E) Kerala.
P6 - Copy of advocate notice dated 26.04.2011
P7 - Copy of postal receipt
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - Saji. K. Umman
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
