IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2010.

Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C. No. 88/07

Between:

M/s. Camio Exports Pvt. Ltd.,

151-A, Chandra Nagar,

Kanpur Nagar, represented by its

Director Baby Thomas,

Ponthanakuzhiyil,

Konni, Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. Jaison Mathews)                                              ....  Complainant.

And:

1. M/s. MGF Motors Ltd.,

M.C. Road, Kottayam.

2. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

WP-54. Developed Plot,

Thiruvi-UA

Industrial Estate, Chennai.

3. MGM Motors Ltd.,

Opp. St. Thomas Higher-

Secondary School,

Poyyanil Buildings,

Kozhencherry P.O.

(By Adv. D. Radhakrishnan Nair for

Opposite parties 1 & 3)                                                 ....  Opposite parties.

ORDER

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The fact of the complaint is as follows:  The complainant is a registered Pvt. Limited Company, and is represented by its Director, Baby Thomas who is a competent to represent the company for its legal proceedings.  The above said company already known in the name of M/s. Horsens Exports Pvt. Ltd., now changed its nomenclature as M/s. Camio Exports Pvt. Ltd. keeping all its characteristic.  The second opposite party is the manufacturing company of Hyundai Motor Cars and the first and third opposite parties are the authorised dealer and agent of the second opposite party.  On seeing the sale promotion scheme published by the second opposite party that if the purchaser books the Hyundai Sonata S-20 motor car between the period from 04.10.2004 to 14.10.2004, the company would offer free insurance and a special gold coin worth Rs.50,000/-.  Moreover, the company offered a loyalty support of Rs.30,000/- if the purchaser owns more than one motor car manufactured by the second opposite party at the time of booking the car.  On 13.10.2004, the complainant booked a Hyundai Sonata S-20 model motor car by paying an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the first opposite party through third opposite party.  Subsequently, on 18.10.2004 the complainant had paid the balance price of the vehicle Rs.4,74,080/- to the first opposite party and after that the first opposite party delivered the car at the residence of the Director of the complainant company at Konni through third opposite party.  But after the delivery of the vehicle, they kept away from their promise and offers made in the sale promotion scheme.  Inspite of several demands from the complainant, the opposite parties failed to fulfill the offers assured to him.  The complainant was attracted by the offer and promises made in the scheme by second opposite party and that is the only reason that the complainant opted the Sonata S-20 model car manufactured by the second opposite party.  The complainant had booked the car within the period while the above said scheme and offer was in force and at the time of booking the car, the complainant had more than one car manufactured by the second opposite party.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get the benefits offered under the scheme from the opposite parties.  The non-giving of the offers made by the opposite parties to the complainant amounts to a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to honour the scheme offers.  Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order for directing the opposite parties for paying the benefits under the retail scheme they advertised along with  compensation and cost.  The complainant prays for granting the reliefs.

                   3. The first and third opposite parties filed a common version stating the following contentions:  The main contention raised by these opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The entire transactions between the complainant and opposite parties were done at Kottayam.  Hence the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The opposite parties have no transaction with the complainant company and they have no knowledge about the status of the complainant.  The second opposite party had a sales promotion scheme for a limited period i.e. October 4 to 14.  The scheme was only open to the purchase of the Hyundai vehicle within the stipulated period, and there is no transaction between the complainant and these opposite parties within that period.  Hence the complaint is not entitled to get the benefits under the scheme.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and the relief claimed by the complainant is not sustainable.  These opposite parties MGF Motors Ltd. being a reputed company having long experience in the field of stock and sales of vehicles through out Kerala has not followed any kind of unfair trade practice.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is unreasonable and not justifiable.  The complaint is filed with a malafide intention to extract money from the opposite parties.  Hence these opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost of opposite parties.

                   4. The second opposite party has not appeared or filed version.  Hence he is set exparte and remain as such.

                   5. On the contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration:

(1)          Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(2)          Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)          Reliefs and Costs?

          6. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, documents produced by the complainant is marked as Exts.A1 to A9.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of the opposite parties.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

                   7. Points 1 to 3:  The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Hyundai Sonata S-20 model car from the opposite parties on seeing the sale promotion advertisement published by the Hyundai Company.  As per te sale promotion advertisement, if the purchaser books the car between the period from 04.10.2004 to 14.10.2004 the company offered free insurance to the vehicle, India Korea Friendship Commemoration Special Gold Coin worth Rs.50,000/- and a loyalty support of Rs.30,000/- if the purchaser owns more than one vehicle manufactured by this company at the time of booking this vehicle.  On 13.10.2004, the complainant booked the car by paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- as advance and after that on 18.10.2004 the complainant paid the balance amount and first opposite party delivered the vehicle at the residence of the Director of the company.  After delivering the vehicle, the opposite parties kept away from their offer and promises made in the sale promotion scheme.  They did not give any offer as per the scheme.  The complainant had sent several letters but there is no response from the opposite parties.  Hence he filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 

       8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A9 series.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the retail scheme advertisement published by the 2^nd opposite party stating the sale promotion offers to the purchasers of Hyundai Sonata Car.  Ext.A2 is the quotation/proforma invoice dated 11.10.09 issued by MGF Motors Ltd. to M/s. Horsens Exports (P) Ltd.  Ext.A3 is the copy of demand draft for Rs.4,74,089/- dated 18.10.04 in favour of MGF Motors Ltd.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the receipt issued by the MGF Hyundai to the complainant.  Ext.A5 is the copy of R.C.Book of KL.03/L-5051 Hyundai Sonata Car in the name of Baby Thomas.  Ext.A6 series are the copies of notices (3 Nos.) sent by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.A7 is the copy of legal notice sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by the complainant.  Ext.A8 is the postal receipt for sending Ext.A7 legal notices.  Ext.A9 series are the copies of R.C of KL.13.J/8457 Santro XG in the name of Sri. Shaju. P. Mathews and the copy of R.C of R.U.P-78 AL7053 Hyundai Accent in the name of Shaju. P. Mathews.

          9. The main contention raised by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party is that the entire transactions between the complainant company and opposite parties was done at Kottayam.  Hence the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complaint is barred by limitation.  These opposite parties have no transaction with the complainant company or its Managing Director.  These opposite parties have admitted that they have a Sales Promotion Scheme for a limited period from October 4 to 14.  The scheme was only open to the purchase of the Hyundai vehicles within the stipulated period.  Since there was no transaction with the complainant company during this period they are not entitled for any benefits.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of them.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties. 

        10. Before going to the merits of this complaint, the 1^st contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation is to be considered.  On a perusal of Ext.A1, the copy of the retail scheme, sale promotion advertisement published by the 2^nd opposite party for the sale of Hyundai Sonata Car, the period of offers was from 4.10.04 to 14.10.04.  The complainant was attracted by the offer and he booked the car on 13.10.04 and after that on 18.10.04 he paid the balance price amount and purchased the car.  As per the sale promotion scheme, the 2^nd opposite party offered and assured that if the purchaser books the Hyundai Sonata S-20 Model Car between the period from 4.10.04 to 14.10.04 the company would offer free insurance to the vehicle, a gold coin worth Rs.50,000/- and a loyalty support of Rs.30,000/- if the purchaser owns more than one car manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of booking this car.  But after the delivery of the car, the opposite parties have not paid any offer to the complainant as they assured.  The complainant made several communications (Ext.A6 series) to the opposite parties but they did not respond.  After that on 2.3.07 the complainant had sent a lawyers notices to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for demanding to comply the offers assured as per Ext.A1 retail scheme advertisement.  Even after this legal notice they did not turn up.  Without any reply to the Ext.A6 series letters and Ext.A7 legal notice admitting the offers made through Ext.A1 advertisement by the opposite parties, the complainant’s right to file the complainant expired on 18.10.06.  As per Sec.24 A(1) of the C.P.Act, a complaint is to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  The cause of action of this complaint started from 18.10.04 i.e. from the date of purchase of the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant filed this complaint only on 21.8.07, after the expiry of the limitation period.  Therefore this complaint is barred by limitation.  In the circumstances, this complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  The 1^st point is find against the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

          11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of March, 2010.

                                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                      C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                             (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                   :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)            :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the retail scheme advertisement published by the 2^nd   

            opposite party.

A2     :  Quotation/proforma invoice dated 11.10.09 issued by MGF Motors Ltd. 

             to M/s. Horsens Exports (P) Ltd, Kanpur. 

A3     :  Photoopy of demand draft dated 18.10.04 for Rs.4,74,089/- in favour        

            of MGF Motors Ltd. 

A4     :  Photocopy of the letter dated 18.10.2004 issued by the complainant

            to the 1^st opposite party. 

A5     :  Photocopy of R.C.Book of KL.03/L-5051 Hyundai Sonata Car in the 

            name of complainant. 

A6 series     :  Copies of notices (3 Nos.) sent by the complainant to the opposite 

                      parties. 

A7     :  Photoopy of legal notice dated 2.3.07 sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite     

            parties by the complainant. 

A8     :  Postal receipt for sending Ext.A7 legal notices. 

A9 series     :  Copies of R.C. of KL.13/J-8457 Santro XG in the name of Sri. 

                      Shaju. P. Mathews and the form of R.C of R.U.P-78 AL7053 

                      Hyundai Accent in the name of Shaju. P. Mathews.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                 (By Order)

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Baby Thomas, Ponthanakuzhiyil, Konni, Pathanamthitta.    

(2)   M/s. MGF Motors Ltd., M.C. Road, Kottayam.

(3)   M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., WP-54. Developed Plot,

          Thiruvi-UA Industrial Estate, Chennai.

(4)  MGM Motors Ltd., Opp. St. Thomas Higher Secondary School,

          Poyyanil Buildings, Kozhencherry P.O.

     (5) The Stock File.