STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mrs.Indira Sapru w/o Dr.R.P.Sapru and resident of House No.1112, Sector 7, Panchkula.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1]       M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, DLF Tower B, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh through their General Manager/Manager.

Respondent/OP No.1

2]       M/s Charisma Goldwheels (P) Limited, 7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through their General Manager/ Manager.

 ....Respondent/OP No.2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.R.P.Sapru, husband of the appellant.

Sh. Ankush Kalia, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. proxy for Sh. Neeraj Pal    Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This is complainant’s appeal for modification of order dated 10.8.2011, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) whereby her complaint was allowed and OP No.1 was directed to pay Exchange Bonus amount of Rs.10,000/-. However, complaint qua OP No.2 was dismissed. OP No.1 was further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it was liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of passing of the order  till the date of actual payment.

2.                      Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Hyundai I-10 Car from OP-2 on 6.8.2009.  It was stated that as a promotional exercise, OP-1 had offered an Exchange Bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the customers, who previously owned a car and sold the same within 3 months of the new purchase.  The documents required for filing of claim for the Exchange Bonus, included amongst others, a copy of the original transferred RC of the old Car in the name of new owner.  The complainant failed to get this particular document from the new owner and since the end of the stipulated period of 3 months was approaching, she filed a claim with the OPs on 03.11.2009 for the promised discount along with requisite documents including affidavit from the new owner testifying to the fact that he had purchased the old car from the complainant.  The OPs refused to accept the documents without the copy of the transferred RC despite various requests and efforts by the complainant to transfer the R.C. in the name of new owner.  Thus, this complaint was filed with a prayer that the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the Exchange Bonus be paid to her with interest and compensation.

3.                      In its written reply OP-1 submitted that the complainant had failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions for availing the Exchange Bonus, hence she was not entitled to the same.  The Exchange Bonus was payable only after the old car was transferred in the name of new owner, 30 days prior or till 105 days after the purchase of new Hyundai Car.  However, the complainant did not satisfy these requirements.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.                      No separate reply was filed by OP No.2 and it had adopted the reply filed by OP-1.

5.                      Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

6.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

7.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of exchange bonus to Rs.15,000/- and paying interest and compensation etc. by modification of the impugned order.

8.                      We have heard the husband of the appellant, ld. Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record carefully.

9.                      The contention of the husband of the appellant is that in some other cases, the purchasers of the cars were given Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus but the complainant has been awarded only Rs.10,000/- and, therefore, it should be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.  In support of his contention he referred to an order dated 27.10.2010, passed by the ld. District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh in favour of Mrs. Satya Middha.  He also referred to news items appearing in The Tribune, Chandigarh dated 7.11.2010, 12.11.2010 and 13.11.2011, copies of which have been attached with the appeal.  We, however, do not find any merit in this contention.  The exchange bonus is a beneficial scheme offered by the OP to attract customers for sale of its cars.  It cannot be said to be fixed amount, at all times, and would depend upon various factors, including the demand of the car.  If the demand falls below the specific targets, the exchange bonus may increase and if it exceeds the target, it may decrease or even be done away with.  The mere fact that exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- was being offered to the buyers at different times does not mean that it should have been the same at the time when the complainant purchased her car.  Moreover, the complainant, in para 2 of her complaint, herself mentioned that she was offered exchange discount of Rs.10,000/- when she purchased the car.  The exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- was never promised by the OPs and, therefore, cannot be allowed to her. The ld. District Forum has allowed the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-, as demanded by the complainant, and no enhancement in the same can be made on the extraneous grounds referred to above by the complainant.

10.                   It is also argued by the husband of the complainant that there was delay in making the payment of the exchange bonus to her and she should, therefore, be granted not only interest on the said bonus but also compensation for harassment.  Needless to mention that the ld. District Forum has not allowed either interest or compensation for delay.  In para 3 of the complaint it was admitted by the complainant that for claiming exchange discount she was told to provide a copy of the original transfer registration certificate of the old car to the new owner.  Admittedly, she did not fulfil this requirement within the prescribed time.  In this very para it is further mentioned by her that there was stipulated time of three months to provide the said documents.  Admittedly, she submitted the application (Annexure 2) without the copy of the registration certificate.   The said application was returned to her and thereafter she obtained a certificate (Annexure 4) from the Registering Authority, M.V. Panchkula and submitted the same to the OP on 5.1.2010 vide Annexure 3.  The period of 105 days for submitting the documents had expired on 20.11.2009. The information was, therefore, supplied by her after the said period.  If there was delay in granting the bonus that was entirely due to her fault due to which her claim was rejected by the OP/appellant. She, therefore, cannot claim interest for delayed payment of exchange bonus or compensation for delay in payment thereof.

11.                   The complainant had purchased the new vehicle on 6.8.2009 and thereafter sold the old vehicle to Suresh Kumar on 25.9.2009. The report (Annexure 4) shows that the RC of the vehicle had been transferred in favour of Suresh Kumar on 25.9.2009.  In this manner, the complainant had satisfied the primary condition of transferring the vehicle in favour of a third person within the period of 105 days from the purchase of the new vehicle and was entitled to exchange bonus.  The complainant had informed the OP in this respect on 3.11.2009 but the necessary document was not attached therewith due to which her case could not be sent to OP-1 for paying the amount.  The complainant was, therefore, otherwise entitled to the payment of exchange bonus. 

12.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the ld. District Forum has not allowed this relief on sound principles of justice, equity and fair play.   The impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

          Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

02.02.2012

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER