This appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgement of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj in CC No. 6 of 2018 on 21.12.2018.

                   The fact of the case is that one Ms. Chandreyee Choudhury filed a consumer case before the Ld. Forum on 30.01.2018 against the chairman managing director. M & M Ltd., Mumbai, the director of Khokan Motor works(p) Ltd., Siliguri, manager, Khokan Motors Raiganj.

             Only OP No. 3 Khokan Motors Raiganj has contested the case by filing W.V.

               The complaint U/S 12 of CP Act, 1986 reveals that she purchased a vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Model KUV 100, K-8 NXT, petrol, white color, B.S.IV for Rs. 7,10,340/- which she booked on 23.11.2017 by paying Rs. 4,500/- as booking money. The OP No.3 delivered the vehicle on 04.12.2017 by delivery challan by suppressing the actual facts that Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. declared a special bonanza for the month of December,2017 for special discount of Rs.0.55lacs. The complainant/ Petitioner also stated that the O.P. did not adjust the booking amount of Rs.4,500/- which was refundable. And also, did not adjust the special bonanza amount of Rs.0.55 lacs which was declared in the month of December, 2017. So, the O.P.No.2/Khokan Motors Works (P) not refunded the said booking amount and also did not adjust any offer amount and thereby committed an unfair trade practice. The Complainant/Petitioner obtained Proforma invoice on 09.12.2017 for the same car and same model from M/S. S.N. Motors, Malda who is the Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. where in Rs.6,73,740/- was offered. The complainant/petitioner wrote several letters to the O.Ps. but they did not pay any heed to her letters and did not refund any amount. Finding no other alternative the complainant/petitioner filed this application before this Forum claiming Rs.41,000/- with 18% interest from the date of payment till the date of refund, Rs.50,000/-for harassment, mental agony and breach of peace and Rs.30,000/- for litigation cost.

                  The petition has been contested by the O.P. No.3 by filling the written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable in law, the petition is barred by principle of estoppels. waiver and acquiescence, the petition is barred by law of limitation and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try this case.

                 The definite defense case is that the complainant booked the aforesaid vehicle on 23.11.17 and the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. did not declare any special Bonanza for the month of November 2017. The Special Bonanza was declared for the month of December 2017. As such there is no question for getting any Special Bonanza, as in the month of November 2017 the company did not offer any Special Bonanza. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                  Ld. Forum after hearing both sides, delivered the impugned final order based on evidences, oral and documentaries, and came to a conclusion that OP No. 3 was liable to pay compensation on account of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

              Being aggrieved with the order this appeal follows on the grounds that the order under appeal was full of errors, defective and unauthorized in law.

              The appeal was registered against the complainant and the Chairman & MG. of M & M Ltd.

              The complainant has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate Mr. B. Das. The appellant conducts the hearing through Ld. Advocate Mr. M. Pal & Others.

                                                          Decision with reasons: -

               Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides during the course of hearing the appeal it is established that the complainant purchased a car of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Model KUV 100, K-8 NXT, petrol, white color, B.S.IV brand and such fact has also been admitted by O.P.No.3. The main dispute arose whether in the month of booking i.e., in the month of November, 2017 any offer i.e., Special Bonanza was given by the company Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. or not.

              Ld. Advocate of the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 highlighted his arguments to the points that on 02.12.2017 the complainant's RTGS to Khokan Motors Works (P) Ltd., Siliguri, SBI at Siliguri for Rs.7,10,340.00/- as per proforma Invoice issued on 23.11.2017 by suppressing the fact's Special discount for December, 2017 for Rs.0.55 lacs they had not adjusted Rs.4500.00/- in the bill i.e., they had taken Rs.7,14,840.00/- instead of Rs.7,10,340.00/- i.e., refundable amount is Rs.4500.00/-.

              That after realizing this fact, the complainant wrote a letter and sent it through speed post to Opposite Party No.1,2,3 i.e. The Chairman & Mg. Director Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Automobile Sector, Mahindra Towers 3d Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali(E), Mumbai, The Director, Khokan Motors Works (P) Ltd., NH-31, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri and the Manager, Khokan Motor Works (P) Ltd., NH-34 (Mahindra & Mahindra Showroom), P.O. Sudarshanpur, Raiganj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur.

               That the original principal Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai & original dealer at Siliguri of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Khokan Motors Works (P) Ltd, Siliguri received that letter and enquire the matter over Mobile from Mumbai & Siliguri but to utter surprise the O.P. No.3 Le. Khokan Motors Works (P) Ltd, Raiganj refused that letter on 18.12.2017 (Xerox copy of which front & back page- P- 5 enclosed herewith which will self-explanatory). It seems that for avoiding cheating to the public he had refused that letter for claim and damages and refund of money which has been taken in advance and before delivery of car on 04.12.2017.

               That the complainant visited another dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. at Malda M/S S.N. Motors and collected a Proforma Invoice for the same Car, same model they offered Rs.6,73,740.00/- including Tax, Regdn, Insurances etc. Whereas Khokan Motors Works(P) Ltd, Raiganj realized from complainant Rs. 74,840.00/- i.e., differences are Rs.41,100.00/-which was taken from the complainant in excess illegally.

              That the special offer was published in the paper in the month of October 2017 for purchasing a vehicle of the type mentioned above i.e., Model KUV 100, K-8 NXT, petrol, white color, B.S. IV brand.

              It is further stated that the Ld. Court below have rightly considered the case of the complainant by going through all the evidences adduced by the Complainant / Respondent no. 1 hereof as well as the evidence adduced by the Appellant / O.P no. 3 and have rightly passed the judgment in favour of the complaint making an observation that the Appellant / O.P no. 3 are liable for the deficiency of service by adopting restrictive trade and unfair trade as because the Appellant / O.P no. 3 has taken the excess amount from the complainant without giving the special offer to the complainant / Respondent no. 1.

                Ld. Advocate of the appellant argues with the tune of WNA and Additional WNA that the main contention of the Appellant/Opposite Party before the Learned Forum below was that firstly the complainant/Respondent No. 1booked the vehicle in question on 23.11.2017 i.e., in the month of November, 2017 and Mahindra & Mahindra Limited did not declare the special bonanza for the month of November, 2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the special bonanza which the complainant/respondent No.1 is talking about was only applicable to vehicles purchased in the month of December, 2017. Furthermore, the schemes of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited changes every month and the complainant/respondent No.1 was eligible for the scheme of November 2017 which the Appellant/Opposite Party has given to the Complainant/Respondent No.1 and the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for by the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1.

              The discount, if any, cannot be given by a dealer. It is the manufacturing company which is entitled to grant discount. Documents reveal that the parent company has categorically stated that the vehicle was booked in the month of November 2017 and thus the discount of December Count not be availed.

             Secondly the vehicle was registered in the month of November 2017 and thus there is no question of availing the discount of December 2017.

              The Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum at Raiganj, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur has relied on a paper document submitted by the complainant/respondent No. 1 which is issued by the Mahindra & Mahindra Limited wherein it is clearly visible that the offer/benefits are valid till 31st December, 2017.

             The Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum failed to realize that an offer cannot have any retrospective effect and at the most can have its effect on and from the date on which it was published. In this particular case, the offer/advertisement was published in ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA dated 23.12.2017 and the vehicle was booked on 23.11.2017.

              The paper document submitted in the Ld. Forum by the Complainant/Respondent No.1 regarding the scheme of December, 2017 only particularly mentions the date till it is valid but nowhere it is mentioned since when the offer is starting which invariably means that the offer shall be valid on and from the date of publication of the said offer in the newspaper and not from any retrospective effect.

              The Learned District Forum has wrongly observed "on perusal of the document it is found that the special offer was published in the paper in the month of October 2017" whereas fact remains that there were no such documents available in the record. On the contrary the complainant has filed a document which shows that the publication was made in the month of December 2017.

              He further submits that the manufacturer M & M Company Pvt. Ltd. by its letter dated 15.01.2018 addressing to the complainant categorically informed that “for a vehicle purchased in November, offers of December could not apply.”

             After hearing both sides it has become Crystal clear about the events Chronologically as follows: -             

          The Complainant visited the showroom of Khokan Motor Rajang for purchase of four wheelers on 23.11.2017. She obtained the proforma invoice on that very day and the showroom price of Mahindra KUV 100 Model was settled at Rs. 7,10,340/-. She paid booing money on that very date Rs. 4500/-.

               The vehicle was registered with name of the complainant by MVI dept. of Dist. Uttar Dinajpur on 30.11.2017. The Complainant pursued the loan process to manager the price of the Vehicle through bank and bank sanction the loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 28.11.2017 and the complainant paid the price of the vehicle to the Seller by RTGS Bank payment to the tune of Rs. 7,10,340/- on 02.12.2017.

              The Complainant says that the appellant (OP No.3) did not make refund of the advance of Rs. 4500/- though the entire showroom price of Rs. 7,10,340/- was paid by her by RTGS on 02.12.2017.

               The complainant further claims that Rs. 55,000/- as SPL discount offer continued on Dec. 2017 was not provided to the Complainant. According to her, only discount Rs.17,500/- was provided to her case and in this way extra Rs.41,000/- was squeezed unethically by the OP which tantamount to unfair and restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP No. 3.

              Now the question is whether the offer up to 55,000/- discount was in existence on the part of Mahindra’s Mahindra company pvt. Ltd. on 23.011.2017 i.e., on the very date of booking of the car.

              The newspaper advertisement which are produced in this case regarding the offer advertisement, the offer was existent for the month of Dec. only and no where it is mentioned that the Diwali special discount offer was extended even after the Diwali festival was over. No documentary evidence was there to hold the special discount offer up to Rs.55,000/- was there on the date of booking of the car that is on 23.11.2017.

              Rather the discount offer always declares by the manufacturer and not the dealer. The manufacturing company by letter dated 15.01.2018 makes aware to the complainant that on 23.11.2017 the spl. Bonanza discount offer up to 55,000/- was not in existent and offer of Dec. cannot be applicable to the sale price discount on Nov. sale.

           The proforma invoice speaks that Rs.17,500/- was the discount amount and the complainant by accepting this amount as discount booked the vehicle for the purchase and she cannot avoid the liability of the agreement of purchase on accepting the proforma invoice.

             So, the Order of the Ld. Forum is found defective, inappreciable and misconceived. On the other hand, the price of the vehicle was fixed after deduction of discount was Rs.7,10,340/-. Beside this amount, the complainant paid booking money Rs. 4500/-. The actual payment was made Rs. 7,14,840/-. The excess amount of Rs.4500/- paid on 23.11.2017 as booking money was not refunded by the Appellant and in spite of series of communications the appellant did not take any measure to refund the said amount to the Complainant which reflects that deficiency of service and unfair trade practice was there on the part of Appellant. But the quantum of compensation for deficiency of service and litigation cost awarded by the Ld. Forum to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively appears to be excessive having no logical conclusion.

                                                            Hence it is Ordered,

                The Appeal be and the same is partly allowed on contest without cost. The final Order and Judgement dated 21.12.2018 delivered by Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur, in CC No. 06 of 2018 is hereby modified to the effect that the claimant /respondent No. 1 shall get Rs. 4500/- instead of Rs.41,000/- from the appellant along with interest @8% PA since the date of 02.12.2017 and Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent No.1 within two months from this day failing which it will carry interest @6% PA from the date of Filing of the Consumer Complaint on 30.01.2018.

           Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.