Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/292/2010

Mrs. Indira Sapur, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2011

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 292 of 2010
1. Mrs. Indira Sapur,R/o # 1112, Sector 7, Panchkula. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd,DLF Tower B, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh, through its General Manager/Manager.2. M/s Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd,7, Industrial area Phase-I, Chandigarh through their General Manager/Manager. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 10 Aug 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint Case No

:

292 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution 

:

  12.05.2010

Date   of   Decision 

:

  10.08.2011

 

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

 

                                                                                    ---Complainant

 

V E R S U S

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

 

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

 

---Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:            SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

 

Argued By:            Sh.R.P.Saproo, Authorised Agent for the complainant.

Sh.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the OP-2.

Sh.Ankus Kalia, Advocate for the OP-1.

 

PER  MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The instant complaint relates to non-payment of Exchange Bonus by the OPs as per offer made at the time of purchase of new car.

                Briefly stated the complainant had purchased a Hyundai i-10 Car from OP-2 on 6.8.2009.  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.  The complainant has thus filed the present complaint with a prayer that the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the Exchange Bonus be paid to her along with interest and compensation.

 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. 

                During the pendency of the case, the OP had offered to compromise the matter with the complainant and had offered to pay her Rs.10,000/- towards Exchange Bonus.  The complainant was not willing to accept this amount, hence the case was brought back into the mainstream and the case was fixed for filing reply by the OPs.

                OP-1 in its reply has taken preliminary objection that the complaint is baseless and formulated on wrong and misleading facts, hence devoid of merit.  They have submitted that the complainant had failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions for availing the Exchange Bonus, hence she was not entitled to the Exchange Bonus of Rs.10,000/-.  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.  The complainant had not satisfied these requirements. 

                On merits, OP-1 has denied most of the averments of the complainant and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                OP-2 did not file separate reply and has adopted the reply filed by OP-1 as per statement dated 21.2.2001.

                The complainant also filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by OPs and submitted that the OPs had offered to pay her Rs.10,000/- towards Exchange Bonus but she was not willing for the compromise.  She has made mention of matters where higher a compensations were given to the complainants.

 

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.  

  

5]             The dispute has arisen because the OPs have not paid the Exchange Bonus on the application of complainant.  The complainant was required to sell her vehicle and provide the copy of transferred R.C. in the name of new owner within 90 days of purchase.  As this condition was not complied with, even though the vehicle had been sold by the complainant on 04.09.2009, as per affidavit of the new owner placed on record, the complainant was not paid the exchange bonus. 

 

6]             When the complaint was filed, the OPs came forward and agreed to pay the said amount to the complainant despite the fact that the essential terms & condition of transfer of R.C. had not been complied. The complainant was, however, looking for compensation also. 

 

7]             Strictly speaking, the Exchange Bonus offered, is a beneficial scheme for prospective buyers to attract customers, but with a specific pre-condition.  The complainant has not satisfied the pre-condition, as the new owner did not get the R.C. transferred in his name within the stipulated times.  Despite this discrepancy, the OPs, even before filing reply, still offered to give her the Exchange Bonus. 

                In our opinion the non-acceptance of the amount offered by the OPs and expecting higher compensation by the complainant is unjustified, especially since she has not been able to meet the pre-condition of the offer.

 

8]             But taking a lenient view, we still allow the complaint and direct OP-1 to pay the Exchange Bonus amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as per the offer. However, no compensation needs to be paid to the complainant in this case.

                The Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in Appeal Case No.357 of 2010, decided on 25.5.2001 titled Hyundai Motors & Anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta & Anr., has held that the exchange bonus is to be given by the Manufacturer and not by the dealer.  Accordingly, as per the above ruling, we dismiss the complaint qua OP-2.

 

                    This order be complied with by OP-1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

 

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10.08.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 

 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER


MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER