DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th day of September 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President in charge<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.115/2006<br /> T. Rajan<br /> S/o. Late Vasudevan Nair<br /> Sahyadri Colony<br /> Chandranagar<br /> Palakkad - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Sitaram Motors<br /> TUDA Road<br /> Peringavu<br /> Thrissur - 22. <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Sitaram Motors<br /> Chandranagar<br /> Palakkad - Opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, President in charge<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant's case is that he was attracted by an offer under 224 Benefit Scheme made by the opposite party, he had purchased an ALTO LX1 E3 Car in exchange of a motor cycle owned by him. He paid Rs. 15,000/- as booking advance to 2nd opposite party on 08.10.2005 and Rs.50,000/- was also made towards balance price. The case was delivered on 30.09.2005 by the opposite party. Under the 224 benefit/scheme (Two to Four -From two wheeler to four wheeler) the opposite party had offered a gift of Rs.5,000/- when a <br /> <br /> - 2 -<br /> four wheeler is purchased in exchange of a two wheeler and when the two wheeler is sold through the opposite party. The opposite party had also offered a benefit of 50% of the insurance. As per the terms and conditions of 224 benefit scheme gift of Rs.5,000/- should be awarded within one month of the delivery of the car. In spite of repeated requests by the complainant, the opposite party did not pay the amount as promised. The complainant alleges that the above act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on their part. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding the gift amount to which the opposite party send a reply stating false allegations. Hence the complainant had approached before this forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay the gift amount of Rs.5000/- along with compensation of Rs.1000/- for the mental agony suffered by him.<br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party for appearance . Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. Complaint is not maintainable and is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The opposite party is only a authorised dealer of Maruthy Udyog Ltd and the scheme 224 pertaining to which the complaint is preferred by the complainant is a scheme announced by the manufacturer Maruthy Udyog Ltd and hence MaruthyUdyog Ltd is necessary party in the above complaint. Opposite party admitted that the car was booked by the complainant and that opposite party had received payments as stated by the complainant. The claim of the complainant that the 224 scheme was an offer of the opposite party is not correct. For availing the benefit of the scheme one should sell his two wheeler to a third party and produce the copy of the registration certificate and other documents to prove the change of ownership of two wheeler and then purchase the car manufactured by Maruthi Udyog Ltd through any of its <br /> - 3 -<br /> authorised dealers. All the conditions required to be complied by the complainant for availing the benefit under 224 scheme were elaborately explained by the opposite party to the complainant. It was due to the non compliance of the said mandatory conditions the complainant could not avail the benefit under the scheme. It is not correct to state that as per the 224 benefit scheme Rs.5,000/- was to be given to the complainant within one month of delivery of the car. In fact as per the scheme the amount of Rs.5,000/- would be paid by Maruthi Udyog Ltd. Under the scheme only if copy of the registration certificate containing the entry regarding the transfer of two wheeler is produced by the customer within a period of one month from the date of purchase of car. The complainant did not produce the copy of the R C regarding entry showing transfer of ownership of the two wheeler within the stipulated period and the same could not be forwarded by the opposite party to the manufacturer (Maruthi Udyog Ltd) and hence the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the scheme as claimed by him. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with compensatory costs.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits to substantiate their respective contentions. Exhibits A1 to A7 was marked from the side of the complainant. Matter was heard. We have perused the exhibits produced before the forum as well as the affidavits filed by the parties. It is obvious from Ext. A1 that the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- towards booking advance on 23.08.2006<br /> <br /> It is admitted that the complainant had purchased an Alto LX1 E3 car from the opposite party and the car was delivered at his residence on 30.09.2005. From Exhibit A5, A6 and A7 it is noticed that the scheme of 224 was announced by the manufacturer Maruthy Udyog Ltd. The manufacturer was a necessary <br /> - 4 -<br /> party in the above proceedings the complainant ought to have included the manufacturer (Maruthy Udyog Ltd) in the proceedings without impleading the manufacturer the complaint is not maintainable and is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. More over the extract of Register of Motor vehicles Form No.24 which was marked as Exbt A2 will clearly shows that the request for transfer of ownership of the 2 wheeler was made by the complainant to the Registering Authority only on 27.02.2006 and the certificate for the same is issued only on 03.03.2006. The said document proves the contention of the opposite party that the complainant did not produce the documents within one month from the date of purchase of the car. In the above circumstances we cannot attribute deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. There is no substances in the allegations made by the complainant. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits. In the result the complaint is dismissed with no order as costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> President in charge (SD) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Receipt issued by opposite party for booking advance dtd 23.08.06 <br /> Ext.A2 – True extract of register of motor vehicle<br /> Ext.A3 – Copy of Lawyer notice with postal receipt and acknowledgment<br /> Ext.A4 – Reply issued by opposite party<br /> Ext.A5- Advertisement in Manorama daily dated 26.10.05<br /> Ext.A6 – Advertisement in Mathrubhumi dated 28.10.05<br /> Ext.A7 – Advertisement in Mathrubhumi dated 28.10.05<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party<br /> Nil<br /> <br /> Forwarded/by Order,<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent