DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 383 of 04-12-2009<br /> Decided on : 19-03-2010 <br /> <br /> Tarsem Kumar Jindal S/o Sh. Desh Raj, # 127 Ward No. 4, OBC Street, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa. <br /> ..... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Raja Hyundai, Mansa Road, Bathinda through its Prop./Director.<br /> 2.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park, IRRUNGATTUKOTTKI, N.H. 4, Sirperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, District (Tamilnadu) through its Managing Director<br /> 3.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., North Regional Office, DLF Tower-B, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park Chandigarh through its Regional Manager <br /> .. ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. K.K. Vinocha, counsel for <br /> opposite party No. 1.<br /> Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 exparte. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that opposite party No. 1 under the Sale promotion scheme gave offer on behalf of all the opposite parties to the complainant that if he would purchase new Verna Car from opposite party No. 1 and sell old Maruti Esteem car, he would be given discount of Rs. 10,000/- on new Verna Car under the above said scheme. On 17-12-2009, the complainant purchased new Verna CRDI SX VGT car from the opposite parties through opposite party No. 1 which issued him Temporary Certificate of Registration vide Ex. C-2. Opposite party No. 1 issued retail Invoice on 21-02-2009 for an amount of Rs. 8,08,992/- vide Ex. C-3. The opposite parties told the complainant that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be given to the complainant through cheque after submission of some documents. The complainant submitted the photocopy of sale purchase documents of both the cars with the affidavits through registered post letter dated 23-03-2009 to opposite party No. 1. He also sent photocopy of transferred Registration Certificate of the new owner of the old car to opposite party No. 1 through letter dated 11-05-2009 by registered post on 15-05-2009. <br /> 2. Another contention of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 is working under different heads/names and styles. Hence, all the names under which it is working are one and the same Company.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 1 admitted in its written version that scheme was floated under “Exchange Scheme” and complainant purchased New Verna Car under the said scheme. It has been pleaded that complainant himself has failed to submit the documents in time as required under the scheme. All other allegations levelled by the complainant against opposite party No. 1 are denied.<br /> 4. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. <br /> 5. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.<br /> 7. From the perusal of record it is revealed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant has sent <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> all the documents to the opposite parties which were mentioned in the written reply. Moreover, the complainant sent many letters and also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties neither sent reply to the legal notice nor made the payment of said benefit to him. Therefore, it is held that whenever any scheme is floated by any Company that very company is bound to give the benefits of that scheme within stipulated time as mentioned in the scheme otherwise that would tantamount to unfair trade practice as has happened in the case in hand.<br /> 8. Therefore, this Forum reached to the conclusion that opposite parties are using delaying tactics whereas it was their duty to make the refund amount of Rs. 10,000/- as soon as they have received the required documents from the complainant but till today, the benefit of above said scheme under which the complainant has purchased a new Verna car and sold his old Maruti Esteem car, are not given to the complainant which amounts to gross deficiency in service and tantamounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. Hence, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- being benefit of scheme in question alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment besides cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant . The said payment be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- i.e. benefit of scheme would carry interest @12% P.A. from the date of this order till realisation.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 18-03-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) *ik Member <br /> <br />