BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 138/2009 Filed on 10.06.2009
Dated : 30.09.2010
Complainant:
V.N.K. Pillai, T.C 77/2012(AMRA 70), N.H. Bypass, Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.
(By adv. G. Manmadhan Nair)
Opposite parties:
M/s Hilton Hyundai, represented by its Authorized Officer, Sharmees Towers, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Prabhu Vijaya Kumar)
M/s Hyndais Motors India Ltd., A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Phase 1, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.
This O.P having been heard on 20.09.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant had purchased a brand new Hyundai Car Xing XK model of the 2nd opposite party and took delivery on 15.03.2007 reference delivery receipt No. 3335 dated 08.03.2007 from Hilton Motors, Eanchakkal showroom of the 1st opposite party. While negotiating the purchase of the said vehicle during the month of February and March 2007, the complainant was offered that an exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- with respect to the Maruthi 800 car of the complainant bearing Reg. No. MH 06 C-3992 and also offered a corporate scheme of Rs. 4,000/-. At the time of negotiation for purchase of the said vehicle, a German make stereo with remote controller was also offered, but at the time of delivery of the vehicle the 1st opposite party has arranged only a pioneer model stereo without a remote controller instead of German make stereo. By bonafide believing the exchange offer and other offers made by the opposite parties, the complainant has taken a decision to purchase the out dated Hyundai Car (2006 model) in the year 2007. But while getting delivery order it was mentioned that the required documents viz copy of old R.C Book showing Transfer details of new ownership and new R.C Book of the old car should be submitted before 30 days from the date of delivery of the Hyundai car. At the time of negotiation of the vehicle, the complainant has never been informed about the time limit within which the claim is required to be made. But immediately on the notice of the said facts the complainant has informed to sales executives and concerned authorized officers of the 1st opposite party that he was not able to produce the said documents within 30 days. The old Maruti Car bearing Reg. No. M.H 06 C-3992 was registered before the R.T.O at Mumbai and it will take considerable time for getting No Objection Certificate from Maharashtra R.T.O with respect to the registration of the said vehicle in Kerala. The complainant could submit the claim on account of exchange offer on 15.09.2008. The reason for delay was properly informed. Since it is an interstate transfer of registration, firstly it would be transferred and registered only in the name of the registered owner, the complainant herein. The complainant on several occasions issued E-mail to the opposite parties with respect to the delay occurred for the production of documents required for exchange offer. At last on 25.04.2007 and on 15.09.2008 the complainant has issued notice to the opposite parties with respect to getting the exchange offer already offered by the opposite parties before the purchase of the Santro Car. Even after the repeated demands, notices and request, the opposite parties are not taking any appropriate action for giving exchange offer to the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the complainant has failed to produce the required documents within one month as mentioned in the delivery report. There is absolutely no purposeful delay or latches on the part of the complainant. The opposite party has already issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as the Corporate Officer in the month of July 2008. The opposite parties are purposefully deviating from the offer made by them. It is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint has been filed.
1st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The exchange bonus is an offer from the manufacturer for which there are specific terms and conditions prescribed by them. As per the terms and conditions mandated by the manufacturer, copy of R.C Book of the old vehicle showing ownership of the car and the copy of the R.C Book showing transfer of ownership should be submitted within 30 days. This fact is admitted by the complainant. This fact was clearly explained to the complainant at the time of initial enquiry regarding purchase of the new Hyundai car itself. The exchange offer and the terms are prescribed by the manufacturer, Hyundai Motor India Ltd., the 2nd opposite party herein. This respondent being the dealer has got no other powers than forwarding of the documents. The complainant cannot be given any undue relaxation in the time frame for submitting the documents just because he had been negligent and careless in following the rules existing in our state. It is an illegal act to use a vehicle registered in another state to be used in our state. Further the road tax is paid by the complainant for the vehicle in Maharashtra. So he was even evading paying the road tax even though the vehicle was being plied on Kerala State road. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of this opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed for. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
2nd opposite party remains exparte.
Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has been examined as PW1. Exts. P1 to P7 were marked on his side. Opposite parties had no evidence.
The points for consideration are:-
Whether the complainant is entitled for the exchange bonus?
If the above is in affirmative from whom the complainant is entitled for the same?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
Points (i) to (iii):- The statement of Account of Hilton Hyundai which has been marked as Ext. P4 evidences that an exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/- has been offered to the complainant. As per Ext. P4 it has been clearly printed that to avail exchange offer the copy of old R.C book showing transfer details of new ownership and new R.C Book should be submitted before 30 days from the date of delivery. But the complainant has pleaded that at the time of negotiation of the vehicle the opposite parties were fully aware that the old vehicle was brought from out of state and it was impossible for transferring the registration of vehicle for claiming the refund of exchange offer within one month and without disclosing the fact, the opposite parties have given delivery of new vehicle to the complainant. The counsel for the 1st opposite party has contended that any out of state vehicle should be transferred to Kerala registration for regular usage and plying on Kerala state roads and that if the complainant has omitted to change the registration and delayed in transfer of ownership, the complainant himself is to be blamed for the same. During cross examination the complainant answered the question put by the counsel for the 1st opposite party that “നിങ്ങള് രേഖകള് correct ആയി ഹാജരാക്കാത്തത് കൊണ്ടും നിങ്ങളുടെ ഭാഗത്തുള്ള വീഴ്ച കൊണ്ടുമാണ് exchange offer കിട്ടാത്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q). 2nd opposite party-യുടെ office-ല് records കിട്ടുന്ന മുറയ്ക്ക് ഹാജരാക്കാം എന്ന് അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നു. എന്റെ ഭാഗത്ത് നിന്നും മന:പൂര്വ്വം വീഴ്ച ഇല്ല (A). The 2nd opposite party has not cross examined the complainant. The 2nd opposite party even after acceptance of notice from the Forum neither filed any version nor has denied the allegations levelled against them. In Ext. P2 the customer signature has not been obtained, but the authorized signatory of Hilton Hyundai has signed in it. The complainant has sworn that he has not been intimated regarding the time limit of 30 days, at the time of negotiation. That immediately on knowing the time limit, the complainant had informed the 1st opposite party regarding the delay for transferring the vehicle in the name of the intending purchaser. The complainant has no case that the 1st opposite party had delayed in forwarding the papers to the 2nd opposite party. It is true that the offers have been made by the manufacturer. The complainant has failed to establish the allegation that the opposite parties had offered a German make stereo with remote controller. The act of non-refund of exchange offer by the manufacturer amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 10,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of this order.
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 2010.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 138/2009
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - V.N.K Pillai
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of the notice dated 25.04.2007
P2 - Copy of notice dated 15.09.2008
P3 - Copy of print out of E-mail dated 20.05.2009
P4 - Copy of statement of account dated 13.03.2007.
P5 - Delivery receipt dated 08.03.2007
P6 - Copy of R.C Book of T.G. Madhavan Nair
P7 - Copy of R.C. Book of V.N.K Pillai.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
