The complainant’s case is as follows:

           The complainant saw a general offer in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 13/2/2008 that whomsoever comes with a cash amounting to Rs.90,000/- gets TATA LPK909 with a dozen fringe benefits. The complainant went to the respondents to ascertain the quality of the vehicle and offered the price notified in the general offer. But the respondent refused to receive the cash and also refused to give delivery of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by this unfair trade practice the complainant send a notice to the respondent on 14/2/08. The notice was duly received but there was no positive reaction . Hence the complaint.

 

           2. The respondent called absent and set exparte.

 

           3. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents to prove his case. They are marked as Exhibits P1 to P3.

 

            4. The complainant’s case is that seeing the general offer advertised in the Mathrubhumi that he will get the TATA LPK 909 at Rs.90,000/- he approached the respondent to buy the vehicle for the price notified. But the respondent was not ready to accept the price which was paid and deliver the vehicle. This amounts to unfair trade practice and to the complainant he is entitled to get the TATA LPK 909 for Rs.90,000/-

 

           5. The Exhibit P1 advertisement was verified and it is seen that Rs.90,000/- is down payment which means a sum of money that is given as the first part of a larger payment. The complaint is filed only on misunderstanding the Exhibit P1 advertisement. So no unfair trade practice is found against the respondent.

 

            6. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

 

                Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 28^th day of December 2009.