DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member Smt Banumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.91/2008
L.R. Muraly S/o. L. Ramaiah Thulasidhalam Menonpara (P.O) Palakkad - Complainant (Party in person) V/s
1. M/s.Palghat – Automotive Pvt Ltd Palghat Hyundai 5/428 Marutha Road BPL Kootupatha Palakkad. (Adv.G. Ananthakrishnan)
2. Regional Office N P 54, Developed Plot Ekkaduthangal Thiru-Vika Industrial Estate Chennai Tamil Nadu - 600032 (Adv . C. Madhavankutty) - Opposite parties
O R D E R Order by Smt. H. Seena, President In short the case of the complainant is as follows. Complainant purchased a new Santro Zing car from the Ist opposite party as per Invoice No. H200700081 dated 31/12/2007. Ist opposite party made several offers viz., exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- Corporate offer of Rs.4000/- worth materials, Insurance 100%, cash discounts Rs.5000/- and basic accessories vide their order booking form. Ist opposite party accepted the old car of the complainant on 25/12/2007 for true value for an amount of Rs.55,000/-. According to the complainant, it is the responsibility of the dealer to produce documents pertaining to the sale of old car to the manufacturer in order to avail the exchange bonus. Ist opposite party assured the complainant that the exchange bonus will - 2 - be paid within 3 months from the date of purchase of new car. The grievance of the complainant is that the dealer has not so far produced the said document to the company for getting the exchange bonus. The act of Ist opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards exchange bonus and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.
Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. As per the contention of Ist opposite party, the say of the complainant that Ist opposite party accepted the complainant's old car on 25/12/2007 for true value of an amount of Rs.55,000/- is false. According to Ist opposite party, complainant approached Ist opposite party for purchasing a Santro Car on 18/10/2007. He intended to exchange his old car when purchasing the new one. Ist opposite party offered free insurance, exchange bonus, Corporate bonus, MP3 player and basic accessories. The opposite party also agreed to arrange for a buyer for his old car at Rs.40,000/-. Thus he was offered in house exchange of Rs.55,000/- ie, Rs.40,000/- for the old car and Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus. Complainant agreed to these conditions and has signed in the order form which was valid till 31/10/2007. Complainant did not pay any amount till 31/10/2007 and hence the order was automatically terminated on 31/10/2007. Later on 26/12/2007, complainant came with a Demand Draft for Rs.2,60,000/- and requested for the vehicle. The Ist opposite party expressed their inability to provide in house exchange but was ready to provide other offers. Complainant has brought a buyer for his old car who has agreed to purchase it for Rs.40,000/- Further the complainant demanded immediate release of the exchange bonus. “According to Ist opposite party the exchange bonus is paid by the manufacturer M/s. Hyundai Motors only on producing the proof of the sale of old car of the customer and purchase and registration of the new car. Usually it takes 3 to 4 months for processing the same. In the present case, Ist opposite party immediately released the same on the request of the complainant who was short of finance and on the basis of the undertaking dated 31/12/2007 that he will provide the proof of sale of his old car. The complainant failed to produce the same and hence opposite party could not claim the exchange bonus from the manufacturer which had already been paid to the complainant on his promise to comply the formalities in time. - 3 - Ist opposite party has demanded the complainant either to provide Registration Certificate of his old car showing sale to the new owner or refund Rs.15,000/- already given.
But the complainant has not complied the same. Ist opposite party has given the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- along with the other offers to the complainant even after the lapse of the original offer. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the parts of Ist opposite party.
The main contention of 2nd opposite party is that allegation in the complaint is against Ist opposite party alone. Further the relationship of the manufacturer and the dealer operates on a principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is solely responsible for any error or omission or misrepresentation if any at the time of retail sale. Further contentions of 2nd opposite party is in tune with that of Ist opposite party.
Both parties filed affidavits. Exhibit A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibit B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Now the issues for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If so, what is the reliefs and costs?
Issues 1 & 2 The definite case of the complainant is that the Ist opposite party has not provided the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- as offered by them. According to Ist opposite party, the said amount was already paid to the complainant on the date of the purchase of the vehicle itself and the complainant failed to produce the documents pertaining to the transfer of his old vehicle where by Ist opposite party lost the opportunity to claim the said amount from the manufacturer.
The sale of the vehicle by Ist opposite party and offers made is revealed by Exhibit A1 and A3. The say of the complainant that the amount was released forthwith without - 4 - forwarding it to the manufacturer etc seems to be unbelievable. The usual practice adapted is that after furnishing the relevant documents, dealer forward the application to the manufacturer and there after on verification by the manufacturer amount will be released.
Further Ist opposite party stated that he has demanded the complainant the documents pertaining to the vehicle or else repay the amount of Rs.50,000/-. No supporting evidence to prove the same.
In view of the above facts and circumstances , we are of the view that opposite party has not adduced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the amount was already released. Complainant claims no relief against 2nd opposite party.
In the result complaint allowed. Ist opposite party directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- being the exchange bonus to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of September 2009
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil
- 5 - Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Order Booking form Ext. A2 - Copy of letter dated 22/05/08 to General Manger, The Palghat Automotive Ext. A3 - Form No.8B (Retail Invoice) of Palghat Automotive (P) Ltd
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Ext. B1 - Order Booking Form dated 18/10/2007 of Palghat Automotive (P) Ltd Ext. B2 – Undertaking for Exchange Bonus claim Ext. B3 – Form No.8B (Retail Invoice) of Palghat Automotive (P) Ltd Ext. B4 – Copy of Undertaking for Exchange Bonus claim – Annexure 2
Forums Exhibits Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost of proceedings
Forwarded/By Order Senior Superintendent Date of fair copy: 12/10/2009 Date of despatch:
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
