The case of the complainant is as follows: Following the general offer in Mathrubhoomi dated 9^th March 2006, the complainant went over to the respondent shop, saw the vehicle and was satisfied with every technical data and offered the price with a prayer for the appropriation of the vehicle. The respondent refused to deliver the vehicle for the cost written in advertisement and added that there are hidden costs. The complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 10.3.06. Following this there came another general offer in the Malayala Manorama dated 13.3.06 repeating the self same offer found in the Mathrubhoomi dated 9.3.06. Then the complainant again went to the respondent shop. Then the Sales Manager explained to the complainant that the general offers found in the newspaper are not intended to be acted upon. The price is slashed down to Rs.1999.00 is to hoax and hoodwink the innocent and gullible buyers. Now also the complainant returned home with empty hands. Then the complainant caused to send a notice. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter filed by the respondent is as follows: It is true that there was an advertisement published on 9.3.06 and in all advertisements it is very clear about the actual price of the vehicle and the instalment facility. This respondent doesn’t know about his visit to the respondent shop and his experience at the respondent shop is only an exaggeration and intended for filing a complaint. His visit to the shop is only imaginary and the matter stated in the complaint about the Sales Manager is false. It is very clearly written in the advertisement that TVS two wheeler for Rs.29,990/-. So the complaint is filed to defame the respondent. The complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for. Hence dismiss.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and Ext. R1 to R4. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            5. Points: According to the complainant by noticing a general offer in Ext. P1 newspaper he went over the respondent shop to purchase a TVS Star City motor bike for an amount of Rs.1999/-. But the respondent refused to deliver the vehicle for that amount. So this complaint is filed to get the vehicle at the notified price in Ext. P1 and also compensation.

 

            6. In the counter, respondent stated that the entire things stated in the complaint are incorrect and it is specifically shown in the advertisement about the total cost of the vehicle. Ext. P1 is the newspaper containing the advertisement alleged by the complainant. It would show that down payment as Rs.1999/-. The cost of the vehicle stated as above Rs.29,990/-. So there is nothing to misunderstand that the vehicle is available for Rs.1999/- only. Down payment is a sum of money that is given as the first part of a larger payment. It doesn’t mean that the vehicle is available for only Rs.1999/-. The respondent sent reply notice in answer to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant and it is marked as Ext. P4. Ext. P4 notice shows that the respondent made it clear to the complainant that the amount noted as Rs.1999/- was the down payment when a customer purchases the vehicle for instalment basis. At that time itself the complainant had to clear off the doubt with regard to the price of the vehicle. He did not do so. The complainant is not at all entitled for any relief sought. There is no unfair trade practice.

 

            6. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.