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. 268/2010 Filed on 21.08.2010
Dated : 31.10.2013
Complainant:
Dr. Leena Thomas, Bobys Land, House No. 812, Anupama Nagar, Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. T.A. Harisankar)
Opposite parties:
1. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., NP 54, Developed Plot, Thiru-v-ka, Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthengal, Guindy, Chennai-32.
(By adv. Rakesh Thampan)
2. M/s Hilton Hyundai (S.7201), represented by Managing Director, P.T.P. Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-38.
(By adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar)
This C.C having been heard on 15.10.2013, the Forum on 31.10.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro Car from the 2nd opposite party, M/s Hilton Hyundai (S7201) represented by its Managing Director, P.T.P. Nagar on 21.05.2009 on payment of Rs. 3,49,221/- , that at the time of purchase 2nd opposite party made an offer to the complainant stating that there is an exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/- introduced by the company, M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., the 1st opposite party herein as part of their marketing strategies for sales promotion during that period, that at the time of purchase of the said car the complainant herein owned a Maruti Zen car of 1996 model bearing Reg. No. KL 7 P 6464, that 2nd opposite party requested the complainant to participate the said exchange offer and promised to pay Rs. 10,000/- as exchange offer, that believing the words of the 2nd opposite party complainant sold her Maruti Zen car to one Rajesh Kumar through the 2nd opposite party office and purchased a new Hyundai Santro car bearing Reg. No. KL-01 AV 4241 from the 2nd opposite party, that later on complainant submitted all the relevant documents to her old Maruti Zen car to the 2nd opposite party. Though complainant approached the opposite parties by phone and in person, there is no response on the part of the opposite parties, thereupon complainant caused to issue lawyer’s notice on 29.05.2010. The said notice was accepted by the opposite party, but there is no response from them. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest along with compensation and costs to the complainant.
Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version. 1st opposite party contends that 1st opposite party deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is solely responsible for error/omission/misrepresentation if any at the time of retail sales/services/repairs of the car and 1st opposite party does not have any responsibility whatsoever, that complainant was never entitled for exchange bonus because 1st opposite party has not received any claim documents of transfer of old vehicle of the complainant from the concerned dealer till date, which is mandatory for granting exchange bonus claim amount, that as per information available from the 2nd opposite party complainant on 28.05.2009 purchased a new Hyundai Santro car from the 2nd opposite party, that complainant has never submitted copy of the transferred R.C of her old car which is mandatory document for release of exchange bonus as per the norms set by the 1st opposite party, that as per the information from the 2nd opposite party dealer, complainant had not handed over the copy of the R.C Book of her old car after its transfer. 1st opposite party has not received complete documents pertaining to exchange bonus claim of the complainant.
2nd opposite party contends that exchange bonus is offered by the manufacturer (1st opposite party) that as per the terms and conditions mandated by the manufacturer, copy of the R.C. Book of the old vehicle showing the ownership of the car and copy of the R.C Book showing transfer of ownership should be submitted to them within 90 days. The complainant did not submit the papers within the aforesaid 90 days times. 2nd opposite party has no role to play in this matter other than forwarding the papers to the manufacturer. Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed for. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether complainant is entitled to get exchange offer of Rs. 10,000/-?
(ii) Whether there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite parties have never filed proof affidavit, but 2nd opposite party has furnished a copy of the document showing the details of exchanged car.
Points (i) to (iii):- There is no point in dispute that complainant had purchased a Hyundai Santro car from the 2nd opposite party on 21.05.2009. There is no point in dispute that at the time of purchase of the said car complainant had exchanged her Maruti Zen car of 1996 model. According to complainant her old car was sold to one Rajesh Kumar through the 2nd opposite party. The issue requires for consideration herein is with regard to non-payment of exchange offer by opposite parties. It has been contended by the complainant that she had submitted all the documents relating to her old Maruti car to the 2nd opposite party. The very stand of the 1st opposite party is that 1st opposite party has never received the copy of the transferred R.C of old car and as such complainant is not eligible for exchange bonus amount and hence exchange claim is rejected. According to 2nd opposite party their role herein is to forward the papers to the 1st opposite party and complainant did not submit the papers within the prescribed time. To substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of the newspaper advertisement showing exchange bonus. Opposite parties never denied such an exchange offer during the relevant period of purchasing the said Hyundai Santro car. Ext. P2 is the receipt dated 21.05.2009 for Rs. 3,49,221/- issued by Hilton Hyundai, Eanchakkal to the complainant. Ext. P2 also includes receipt dated 15.05.2009 for Rs. 5,000/- issued by Hilton Hyundai to the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of the R.C Book of the Maruti vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 7 P 6464. As per Ext. P3 the registered owner is Rajesh Kumar. Ext. P4 is the copy of the advocate notice addressed to both opposite parties by the complainant. Ext. P5 is the copy of the order booking form for Santro GL. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite party. During cross examination by 1st opposite party, complainant has deposed that all the documents required for exchange bonus were furnished to the dealer in July 2009. Complainant has added further that the said documents were given to the dealer directly. During cross examination by 2nd opposite party, when asked whether ownership of Maruti Zen car was changed by her after selling the same, complainant replied that ownership was changed by 2nd opposite party’s agent. Complainant denied the suggestion put by the 2nd opposite party that the exchange claim was rejected by opposite parties since complainant did not submit the papers within 90 days time. Complainant has deposed further that on every enquiry with 2nd opposite party, opposite party replied that they had forwarded the records to head office but did not get reply from them. Opposite parties to substantiate their version never filed proof affidavit. 2nd opposite party has furnished copy of the documents showing the details of exchanged car and new car. A perusal of the said document reveals that complainant purchased Santro car on 28.05.2009 after exchanging her old Maruti Zen car. But the person to whom the said old car sold has not been mentioned. In the remarks column of the said document, it is stated Web R.C attached. From the document furnished by 2nd opposite party it is clear that complainant purchased the new car on exchange of her old car through the 2nd opposite party. Further complainant submitted that all the relevant documents for exchange bonus were given to the 2nd opposite party directly during the 3rd week of July 2009. Since opposite parties have never furnished their affidavit in support of their stand in the version, we cannot afford to overlook the contention raised by the complainant in her affidavit and deposition. The case of the complainant appears to be genuine. Further by Ext. P1 it is revealed that there was exchange bonus offered by opposite parties for purchasing Hyundai car during the relevant period of transaction. Further from the documents submitted by 2nd opposite party it is seen that Web R.C attached which is sufficient to get exchange offer assured by opposite parties. In view of the evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that complainant had established her case and non-payment of exchange bonus on flimsy grounds amounts to deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. Complainant is entitled to get exchange bonus with interest from the date of filing of the complaint along with compensation for mental pain and strain suffered by the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- as exchange bonus with 8% interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint(that is from 21.08.2010) together with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties shall bear and suffer their respective 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, this the 31st day of October 2013.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 268/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Dr. Leena Thomas
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of newspaper advertisement showing exchange bonus
P2 - Receipt dated 21.05.2009 for Rs. 3,49,221/- issued by Hilton
Hyundai, Eanchakkal to the complainant.
P3 - Copy of certificate of registration
P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 29.05.2010
P4(a) - Postal receipts
P5 - Copy of order booking form for Santro GL
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
