BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 232/2009 Filed on 24.08.2009

ORDER DATED: 02.09.2016

Complainant:

Ajith. S, Nelliparambil, T.C 7/1128 (36/665), Pangodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

                   (By Adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narendran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd., A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

(By Adv. Rakesh Thampan)

2. Mr. Saju K. Thomas, Popular Hyundai, 33/2361-A2, Geetanjali Junction, By pass-Vyttila, Kochi-682 019.

3. M/s Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor World Private Ltd., Near Karamana Bridge, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram-40 represented by its Manager.

              (By Adv. R. Balakrishnan Nair for 2^nd & 3^rd O.P)        

This C.C having been heard on 30.06.2016, the Forum on 02.09.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

The complainant purchased a new Hyundai Santro XO Metallic Euro III Car (Reg. No. KL-01 AQ 9182) from the 3^rd opposite party vide ales invoice C200700146 dated 22.06.2007.  He purchased the car having sold out his old TATA Indica car with Reg. No. KL-01 W 9020.  The 3^rd opposite party had issued offer letter to the complainant dated 22.06.2007, the date of purchase of the new car, wherein it is clearly specified that the complainant is eligible for exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/-.  As per HMIL policy, the complainant is eligible for exchange bonus Rs. 10,000/- and corporate bonus Rs. 4,000/- in respect of the purchase of new Hyundai car.  The complainant submitted claim and produced all records to the 3^rd opposite party as informed vide letter dated 22.06.2007, wherein it is specifically stated that he is eligible for exchange bonus and corporate bonus.  Since no action was taken on his claim, complainant made a series of communications to the opposite parties, directly, over telephone and through e-mails requesting them to entertain and settle his claim.  But there was no response for a long time without passing any information to him in this regard.  But to his utter dismay and disappointment, it was informed by the 3^rd opposite party vide e-mail dated 31.01.2008 that his claim has been rejected by Popular Trivandrum, stating that his old vehicle was sold 2 months before invoice date.  The repudiation of complainant’s claim by the opposite party is illegal, improper and against the provisions of law concerned especially when the 3^rd opposite party informed him in specific words that he is eligible for the bonus.  That also on the date of purchase of the new car.  According to the complainant, he purchased his new car with the prospect of getting corporate bonus and exchange bonus as assured.  Had he been informed at the time of purchase, he would not have purchased the car from the opposite parties.  He purchased the new car by availing vehicle loan from the SBT, Sasthamangalam Branch at a high rate of interest.  If the opposite party settled his claim for exchange bonus and corporate bonus, the complainant could get considerable reduction in the interest on the loan amount.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties in settling the claim for which the opposite parties are legally liable to pay compensation.  There is willful latches, lapse and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim.  The opposite parties’ action in this regard is illegal, improper and unfair, the same amounts to sheer deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Till date the opposite parties have done nothing to entertain the claim for corporate bonus also. 

1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The complainant in the present complainant has alleged that he was not given the exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- and the corporate discount of Rs. 4,000/- by the 3^rd opposite party.  It is submitted that the aspect of retail sale of the car is strictly inter-se the complainant and the retailing dealer and the responsibility of the answering opposite party is restricted and limited to warranty obligations alone.  It is further submitted that there is not even a whisper in the entire complaint of any allegation whatsoever against this opposite party.  This opposite party has no role to play in the instant complaint.  There is no cause of action to file the present complaint in respect of the said car as the complainant did not comply within the applicable terms and conditions for availing the exchange bonus and corporate discount.  It is submitted that the complainant was never entitled for the exchange bonus as this opposite party is not in receipt of any of the documents of the complainant from the concerned dealer i.e. 3^rd opposite party, which are mandatorily required for processing and granting the exchange bonus claim of a customer.  As per the exchange bonus claim policy, apart from the other terms and conditions certain documents are required for final claim settlement such as invoice of the new car, registration certificate of the old car in the name of the customer before transfer, registration certificate of the old car after transfer in the name of the purchaser other than in the name of the blood relative of the customer and transfer of ownership fee receipt (in case transfer date is not mentioned on the transferred registration certificate).  Further all exchange claim are valid only if the claims, along with necessary documents are received by this opposite party within 120 days from the date of the sale.  It is pertinent to mention here that the exchange claims are valid only if the old car was transferred 30 days prior or till 105 days after the purchase of the new Hyundai car.  It is submitted that the complainant has suppressed a material fact that he did not comply with the terms and conditions applicable for availing the exchange bonus.  It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme, the complainant was required to purchase a new Hyundai vehicle within thirty days from the date of selling his old vehicle.  As per information available from 3^rd opposite party, the complainant sold his old vehicle two months before the purchase of the Hyundai Santro car bearing VIN No. MALAB51HR7M112089 and engine No. G4HG7M112089 on 23^rd June 2007 and hence is under no circumstances liable to claim the exchange bonus and accordingly the claim of exchange bonus of the complainant was rightfully rejected by the 3^rd opposite party.  As per the terms and conditions for availing the corporate discount, the complainant was required to submit certain documents being new car invoice, new car RC and proof of employment i.e. current dated letter from HR/Administration department certifying of current employment or the current salary slip within a period of 75 days of purchase of the new Hyundai vehicle.  This opposite party has not received the claim documents of the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party till date.  As per information available, the complainant failed to submit the said documents within the stipulated time with 3^rd opposite party and hence was not eligible to claim the corporate discount.  The liability of this opposite party being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone. 

3^rd opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The 3^rd opposite party is one of the dealers at Thiruvananthapuram, of M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd, the 1^st opposite party manufacturers of Hyundai branded cars and vehicles.  For the promotion of sales, the 1^st opposite party gives some offers to some selected products/brands as some sort of incentives like exchange bonus, corporate bonus etc. on the condition that the purchasers should duly submit the duly filled and signed applications prescribed for the same duly supported by the necessary proofs required so as to claim such bonus, as a refund from the manufacturers.  For claiming the exchange bonus, the purchaser should have a motor car in his ownership, possession and use with the registration in his favour for a minimum period of six months and the said old car is sold and transferred the ownership within 30 days just before the date of purchase of the new car, or within 105 days from the date of purchase of the new car, and the sale and transfer of the old car is not to any person of blood relation, and the said exchange bonus claim application duly filled and signed with full proofs are to be submitted to the dealers or to the manufacturers strictly within 120 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  The details of the proofs required are specifically stated in the ‘terms & conditions for eligibility of claims’ attached with the application forms.  The exchange bonus is given not as per the provisions of any Act or Rule, but as an incentive offered by the manufacturer to boost up and promote their sales and the same is purely a discretion of the manufacturers to some selected models.  Corporate bonus is also another offer given by the manufacturers to the purchasers for the promotion of sales to the persons who are employees of government, quasi-government organizations, corporations, banks etc. for which also necessary proofs and salary certificates are to be filed within the specified period within 75 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  All the above said bonuses, incentives, concessions, etc. are given from the funds of manufacturers with a view to boost up the sales of selected models and the same is given as an incentive solely p to the discretion of the manufacturers.  The acceptance and the validity and veracity of the proofs submitted are to be decided by and at the discretion of the manufacturers.  The decision of the manufacturers in such applications is final.  The date of sale of the old car is not stated.  The purchaser is eligible to claim exchange bonus only on the condition that his old car should have been sold within 30 days just prior to the date of purchase of the new car or the same sold within 105 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  As per the Hyundai Motor India Ltd. policy, the purchase of some models of new cars is eligible to claim exchange bonus only on the condition that, if his old car has been sold within 30 days just prior to the date of purchase of the new car or the same sold within 105 days from the date of purchase of the new car.  The offer of exchange bonus and corporate bonus, from the 1^st opposite party was subject to the terms and conditions attached with the application form for the bonuses.  The complainant has not filed any application for corporate bonus within the specified period of 75 days from the date of purchase of the new car, and no proof in support of his claim for corporate bonus was filed.  As per the records (proofs) produced by the complainant to claim the exchange bonus, the date of sale/transfer of his old car KL-01 W 9020 was 17.04.2007, that is to say 64 days prior to the date of purchase of the new car.  Since the sale of the old car is beyond the fixed period of 30 days just before to the date of purchase of the new car on 22.06.2007, the complainant is not eligible to claim the exchange bonus as offered by the manufacturer.  The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties on verification of the records produced by the complainant, it was found that his old car was sold and transferred the ownership 64 days prior to the purchase of the new car, as such the complainant is not eligible for the exchange bonus and informed the same to the complainant.  The exchange bonus is given not as per the provisions of any Act or rule, but as an incentive offered by the manufacturer to promote their sales and the same is purely a discretion of the manufacturers to some selected models and valid for some specified periods and seasons.  The averment that the 3^rd opposite party informed him or offered in specific words that he is eligible for exchange bonus is not correct.  There is no willful latches, lapses or omission or deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties in this case. 

2^nd opposite party filed memo accepting the contentions of the 3^rd opposite party in their version.  So all the 3 opposite parties filed their versions in this case.

Issues:

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for corporate and exchange bonus as alleged?
2. If so, is there any deficiency or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the same?
3. Reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) to (iii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6 and was examined as PW1.  Opposite parties also filed affidavit and filed 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 and D2 and was examined as DW1.  Heard both sides and perused the documents.  This is a case challenging the denial of exchange bonus and corporate bonus which was offered by the opposite parties as a part of sales promotion.  There are specific terms and conditions for eligibility of claims as presented in Ext. D1.  The date of sale of the old car was very important in settling the claim.  The terms and conditions formulated by the 1^st opposite party states that in order to make some entitled to the exchange bonus, he should have sold his car, which is in his possession, 30 days prior to the buying of the new car or 105 days after the purchase of the new car.  Here the complainant has sold the old car to a person of his choice two months prior to the buying of the new car and the same is evident from Ext. D2, which is nothing but the registration particulars of the old car obtained from the Regional Transport Office.  Ext. D2 clearly shows that the vehicle was in the name of the complainant till 28.04.2007 and afterwards it was transferred to the name of one Mr. Sudheer.  Ext. P1 invoice shows that the complainant has purchased the new car on 22.06.2007 and Ext. D2 shows that he has sold and got his name changed on 28.04.2007.  Therefore, reading Ext. P1 and P2 together we can seen that there is a clear violation of the terms and conditions set forth in Ext. P1 which is formulated by the 1^st opposite party and thus the complainant cannot be heard to demand the exchange bonus of which he is not entitled due to the above stated circumstances.  The complainant is relying heavily on Exts. P2 and P3 to forward his claim for exchange bonus.  Both the documents will not come to his rescue as Ext. P2 just stays that he is eligible and Ext. P3 states him to be qualified.  But that can culminate into an entitlement only when the complainant comply with the said terms and conditions.  Ext. P2 and P3 had been received by the complainant only on 23.06.2007.  Only then, he came to know what all documents he need to produce along with the claim application to make him entitled to the bonus.  It is absurd and incredible to say that the complainant had handed over all the documents before it all came to his knowledge.  Besides, Ext. D2 will vouchsafe that the complainant miserably failed to adhere to the terms and conditions formulated by the 1^st opposite party and which is marked as Ext. D1.  Nothing is forthcoming from his part of show that he had applied for the corporate bonus and had produced the necessary documents for the purpose.  Without even applying for the same he ventured to demand it only to suit this case.  In the deposition of PW1, he was asked about the date of sale of the old vehicle, but unfortunately, he failed to answer it properly.  No evidence is before us to conclude that complainant acted his part successfully, that he had presented the required documents within time before the opposite party and the date of sale of the old vehicle correlates with the terms of the exchange policy.  So we are of the considerate view that complainant failed to establish his case and the only option before us is to dismiss the complaint without cost and compensation.

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

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 2^nd day of September 2016.       

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 232/2009

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Ajith. S

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of sales invoice dated 22.06.2007.

P2     - Copy of letter dated 22.06.2007 issued to complainant by O.P

P3     - Copy of ‘Undertaking for Exchange Bonus claim’ dated 23.06.2007

P4     - Copy of e-mail letter dated 31.01.2008

P5     - Copy of advocate notice dated 03.04.2008

P6     - Acknowledgement cards ( 3 Nos.)

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Deepesh. D.S

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of terms & conditions for eligibility of claims

D2     - Copy of registration particulars.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb