IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 95/07 & C.C. No.96/07 (Filed on 01.10.2007) 1. C.C. 95/07 Between: Hari. V.R., Advocate, aged 29 years, S/o. S. Rajan, Soumy Bhavan, Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta – 689645. .... Complainant. And: 1. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial- Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105 represented by its Chairman & CEO. 2. The Managing Director, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial- Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105. 3. M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., MGF Building, M.C. Road, Kottayam –1 represented by its Managing Director. 4. M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta represented by its Branch Manager. .... Opposite parties. 2. C.C. 96/07. Between: Ponnamma Murugan, W/o. Murugan- Vaidyer, Bhanu Bhavan, Kumplampoika P.O., Pathanamthitta. And: 1. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial- Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105 represented by its Chairman & CEO. 2. The Managing Director, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial- Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105. 3. M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., MGF Building, M.C. Road, Kottayam –1 represented by its Managing Director. 4. M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta represented by its Branch Manager. .... Opposite parties. COMMON ORDER Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): These two complaints were jointly heard and disposed of by way of common order. The complainants have filed these complaints for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. C.C. 95/07: The case of the complainant is in brief as follows: On seeing the sale promotion advertisement in Malayala Manorama Daily on 07.30.2006, the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Santro Xing Car from the 4th opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the Managing Director of the first opposite party and the third opposite party is the authorised dealer of first opposite party. The 4th opposite party is the branch of 3rd opposite party. As per the exchange offer made by the opposite parties, the complainant had handed over his 1978 model Ambassador car bearing registration No.KLU-6282 to the 4th opposite party to fulfill the exchange offer. After that, the Sales Officer informed the complainant that the car was sold out for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- to Mr. Hareesh. R., Kayamkulam and informed the complainant that he will be entitled to Rs.5,000.- as exchange offer. Thereafter the complainant availed a loan from Sudarsan Finance and paid the sale consideration of the new car and the 4th opposite party took the delivery of the vehicle on 10.03,2006. At the time of purchasing the car, the 4th opposite party informed that the exchange offer is the offer package of first opposite party and it will take time for processing and activation. Hence the exchange offer amount of Rs.5,000/- would refund later. Further, the 4th opposite party believed the complainant that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2006. But the car was manufactured in the year 2005 and 4th opposite party committed an unfair trade practice to the complainant. 3. The complainant approached several time to reimburse the exchange offer made by the opposite party at the time of the purchase of the new car. But on 11.12.2006 the 4th opposite party informed the complainant that the package was lapsed and the complainant is not entitled to get the reimburse. Due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, the complainant caused loss of Rs.5,000/-. On 27.12.2006 the complainant has issued a lawyer’s notice to the 4th opposite party demanding to reimburse the exchange offer. On 15.01.2007 the 4th opposite party issued a reply to the complainant demanding to send the attested copies of the documents of the exchanged car. The complainant had sent all the attested copies on 02.03.2007 as per the demand. On 25.09.2007 the 4th opposite party has orally denied the fulfillment of the contract and thereby purposefully cheated the complainant and adopted a restrictive trade practice. Through the legal notice, the complainant had demanded only an amount of Rs.11,350/- but due to the change of the circumstances and series of cheating by 4th opposite party the complainant is demanded an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation from the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are vicariously liable for the wrong committed by the 4th opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for realising the exchange offer along with compensation and cost from the opposite parties. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 4. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have filed a common version raising the following contentions: Hyundai Motors India Ltd. operates on a principal-to-principal basis with all its dealers. That if the omission/error committed by the dealer to its customers the sole responsibility is the concerned dealer only. The complainant has filed this complaint for getting the exchange bonus along with compensation and cost. The exchange bonus as sought by the complainant was payable subject to certain terms and conditions, which were not complied by the complainant. The complainant was required to submit the following documents: (1) New Car Invoice. (2) New Car Registration Certificate. (3) Old Car Registration Certificate before transfer in same name and address. (4) Old Car Registration Certificate after transfer. 5. These documents were required to be submitted at head quarters of the opposite parties within 90 days from the date of invoicing the new car. Further, the transfer of old car was to be effected within 60 days of invoicing of new car to be eligible for the exchange bonus scheme. However the complainant failed to submit the documents within the prescribed period. Therefore, he is not eligible for the scheme. The complainant is not entitled to recovery of any money or under the exchange offer as alleged. This opposite parties denied that there has been any cheating or restrictive trace practice from them. There is any cause of action arose in favour of the complainant against this opposite parties on the dates mentioned in the complaint. The complainant is devoid of any merit and this opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 6. For the 3rd and 4th opposite parties, the Executive Director (the dealer) has filed a version stating the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties have not taken any vehicle for exchange as per the advertisement or as exchange offer from the complainant. The opposite parties have not known the vehicle mentioned in the complaint i.e. KLU 6282 Ambassador Car and the sale of said vehicle to Mr. Hareesh. This opposite parties admitted delivery of a Hyundai Santro Xing Car on 10.3.06 to the complainant. Then he has not made any claim for exchange offer and had not informed that he had any vehicle for exchange or sale as per the advertisement of the opposite parties. The complainant has not produced any relevant documents for availing the offer from Hyundai. He has not cared to produce the relevant papers within the stipulated time as per the reply notice sent by them. The opposite parties have not cheated the complainant or followed any type of restrictive trade practice. The opposite parties are unlawfully put to legal proceedings affecting their goodwill they have to be reasonably compensated. The opposite parties MGF Motors Ltd. being a reputed company having long experience in the field of stock and sales of vehicle through out Kerala has not so far followed any kind of unfair trade practice. The demand of money as compensation for the unreasonable claim is not at all justifiable. The opposite parties announced the exchange offer only to the period when the offer was valid. The complainant has not produced the particulars of the sale and purchase of the vehicle within time to the 3rd and 4th opposite parties for processing the claim and for sending it to 1st and 2nd opposite party. There was no willful suppression of any details of the vehicle to the customer by 3rd and 4th opposite party. The manufacturing particulars and specifications are shown in the vehicle and sale letter. The complainant is not entitled to get any relieves as prayed in the complaint. The complaint is filed with a malafide intention to extract money from the opposite parties hence this opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 7. The point to be considered in this case is that whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties as sought for in the complaint? 8. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A10 were marked for the complainant. And for the opposite parties, Asst. Manager of MGF Motors Ltd., Kozhencherry Branch has adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. C.C.No.96/07 9. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: As per the sale promotion advertisement seen in the Malayala Manorama Daily on 7.3.06 published by the opposite parties the complainant had purchased a Hyundai Santro Xing Car from 4th opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party is the authorised dealer of 1st opposite party. 4th opposite party is the Branch of 3rd opposite party. As per the sale promotion advertisement the complainant had handed over her Maruti 800 Car bearing Reg.No.KL.6A-6031 to the 4th opposite party to fulfill the exchange offer. 10. The facts and circumstances of this complaint are same as in C.C.No.95/07. The cause of action was also arisen on the same date. The only difference is that as per the sale promotion advertisement the complainant has alleged that she had handed over her Maruti 800 Car bearing Reg.No.KL.6A-6031 to the 4th opposite party to fulfill the exchange offer. The reliefs prayed for in this complaint are same as in C.CNo.95/07. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 11. The opposite parties filed version and took the same contentions as raised in the connected O.P. The opposite parties are not liable to pay amount to the complainant. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 12. The point raised in O.P.No.95/07 is settled in this case also. 13. The power of attorney holder of the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 is marked for the complainant’s side. For the opposite parties, Asst. Manager of MGF Motors Ltd., Kozhencherry Branch has adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. After closure of the evidence, both complainants were heard jointly. 14. Point in C.C.95/07:- The complainant’s case is that the exchange offer, offered by the opposite parties at the time of purchasing of Hyundai Santro Xing Car from 4th opposite party was not given to the complainant. The complainant had requested several times to the opposite parties to fulfill the exchange offer but they did not turn up and the complainant filed this complaint. 15. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of relevant page of Malayala Manorama Daily. Ext.A2 is the vehicle sale deed executed by the complainant and Mr. Hareesh. R. Ext.A3 is the notary-attested copy of the registration certificate of the Hyundai Santro Xing XO newly purchased by the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A5 is the postal receipt and Ext.A6 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 letter. Ext.A7 is the reply notice sent by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the office copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A9 is the postal receipt of Ext.A8 and Ext.A10 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A8 signed by the opposite party. 3rd and 4th opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1. 16. According to the opposite parties, they have admitted the delivery of a Hyundai Santro Xing Car to the complainant on 10.3.06. The complainant has not produced any vehicle document regarding the vehicle to be exchanged at any time for availing the offer from Hyundai. He has not produced the relevant papers for the exchange of vehicle within the stipulated time as demanded by them for processing the claim and for sending it to 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from opposite parties. 17. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, the Asst. Manager of 4th opposite party has adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext.B1 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A7 accepted by the complainant’s counsel. Ext.B2 is the copy of sale letter dated 10.3.06 issued to the complainant. Ext.B3 is the office copy of certificate issued by the opposite party to the Transport Commissioner stating the Year of Manufacturing of the vehicle they have distributed in the Year 2005. Ext.B4 is the office copy of the sale promotion scheme for March, 2006. The complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1. 18. On going through the evidences in this case, the materials on records shows that the complainant had purchased a Santro Xing Car from the 4th opposite party on 10.3.06. Ext.B4 shows that at that time there was an exchange offer of Rs.5,000/-. For getting the offer the complainant has to be produced the copy of new car invoice, old car’s R.C.Book after exchange and resale required as proof for contribution (within 180 days). The complainant had sent Ext.A4 legal notice for demanding the exchange offer only on 27.12.06. The 4th opposite party’s counsel had sent a reply to the Ext.A4 letter to the complainant. In Ext.A7 they have stated that, the company is ready to expend the facility to the complainant by taking up the matter with the Hyundai Motors, provided if produced the attested copies of the documents signed by the gazetted officer within 15 days from the receipt of this notice. But the complainant had sent the attested copy of the sale deed of old car only on 2.3.07. The complainant failed to comply the stipulations specified in the offer scheme within the stipulated period and he failed to act upon Ext.A7 letter. Exchange offer is an offer made by the manufacturer; it is only for a limited period. The complainant has not acted as per the conditions of the offer or as per the instructions of Ext.A7 notice. In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties for fulfilling the offer made by them. 19. Further allegation of the complaint is that the new car purchased by the complainant was manufactured in 2006, but the manufacturing year of the purchased car is 2005 hence the 4th opposite party adopted an unfair trade practice. On a perusal of Ext.B2 Sale Certificate the year of manufacture is recorded as on 2006 January and the Ext.B3 the model year letter sent by the manufacturer to the Transport Commissioner the manufacturing date alleged by the complainant is not correct. It can see from the evidence that there is a laches from the transport authorities for entering the correct details in the R.C. Book. Hence the opposite parties are not liable for that. The complainant can avail remedy from the Transport Authority for correcting the manufacturing year in the R.C. Book. From the available evidence we could seen that there is a laches from the part of the complainant for complying the conditions specified in the offer made by the 1st opposite party. In the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the complaint from the opposite parties. 20. Point in C.C.No. 96/07:- The facts and circumstances of the complaint is same as in C.C.No.95/07. For proving the complainant’s case, the complainant’s power of attorney holder has adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 were marked. The documents are same as marked in C.C.No.95/07 only the difference is the serial number of the document. The allegation of the complaints against the opposite parties and the reliefs sought for in the complaints are same. In the circumstances, separate discussion is not necessary. On the basis of the above said discussions in C.C.No.95/07 and on a perusal of the materials on records the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the complaint. Hence the complaints are liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, both complaints are dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of August, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: C.C. No.95/07 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Hari. V.R. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of relevant page of Malayala Manorama Daily. A2 : Vehicle sale deed dated 9.3.06 executed by the complainant and Hari.V.R. A3 : Photocopy of the of the registration certificate of the vehicle. A4 : Photocopy of the legal notice dated 27.12.06 sent by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. A5 : Postal receipt A6 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A4 letter. A7 : Reply notice sent by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. A8 : Photocopy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. A9 : Postal receipt of Ext.A8 A10 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A8 signed by the opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : S. Vijayakumar Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A7. B2 : Photocopy of sale certificate dated 10.3.06 issued by 3rd opposite party to the complainant. B3 : Photocopy of certificate issued by the opposite party to the Transport Commissioner stating the Year of Manufacturing of the vehicle they have distributed in the Year 2005. B4 : Photocopy of the Sale promotion scheme for March, 2006. C.C.No. 96/07Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Subanu. A.M Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Power of Attorney dated 06.05.2009 executed by the complainant in favour of Subanu. A.M. A2 : Advertisement published in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 07.03.2006 by the opposite parties. A3 : Sale agreement dated 31.03.2006 A4 : Photocopy of the Certificate of Registration. A5 : Photocopy of the Advocate Notice dated 27.12.2006 sent by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. A6 : Postal receipt of Ext.A5. A7 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A5. A8 : Reply notice dated 15.01.2007 sent by the 4th opposite party. A9 : Photocopy of the letter dated 02.03.2007 issued by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. A10 : Postal receipt of Ext.A9. A11 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A9. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : S. Vijayakumar Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Acknowledgment card. B2 : Photocopy of the Sales Certificate. B3 : Photocopy of the letter sent by the first opposite party to the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvanathapuram. B4 : Promotion scheme for March 2006. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Hari. V.R., Advocate, Soumy Bhavan, Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta – 689645. (2) Ponnamma Murugan, Bhanu Bhavan, Kumplampoika P.O., Pathanamthitta. (3) The Chairman & CEO, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105. (4) The Managing Director, M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Registered office & Factory at Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist, Tamil Nadu – 602105. (5) The Managing Director, M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., MGF Building, M.C. Road, Kottayam –1. (6) The Manager, M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta. (7) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
