By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member: The complaint is filed following a general offer dated 5th May 2008 in the Mathrubhoomi daily that whosoever brings Rs.9999/- shall get a Bajaj XCD 125. The complainant went to the respondent’s office and met the sales manager to ascertain the nature of the vehicle on road. As the answer was ‘excellent’ he revealed his intention to buy the vehicle for the price offered. But the sales manager said that the general offer is meant only to solicit possible buyers and sell the vehicle on the price fixed by the manufacturer. Agreed by these words the complainant sent a legal notice but there was no response. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter is as follows. The complainant had never come to the office or show room of the respondent with Rs.9999/- and met the sales manager and the sales manager had never stated that the advertisement of general offer was to solicit possible buyers and to sell the vehicle for manufacturing cost. The complainant had either not fully understood the advertisement or is misinterpreting the advertisement. There is no general offer to the effect that bike would be sold at a selling price of Rs.9999/-. There had been no trade gimmick or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is the complainant entitled to get the bike for the price offered? (2) Is there any unfair trade practice involve in this case? (3) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and R1 and R2. Both the complainant and respondent had no oral evidence to adduce. 5. Points: The complainant’s case is that there appeared a general offer in the Mathrubhoomi daily dt. 5th May 2008 that a Bajaj XCD 125 bike would be sold for Rs.9999/-. Seeing the advertisement the complainant approached the Sales Manager of the respondents and revealed his intention to buy the bike for the price offered. But the sales manager was not ready to sell the bike for the price offered. He replied that the general offer was to solicit possible buyers to sell the vehicle for the price fixed by the manufacturers. According to the complainant it is a trade gimmick and unfair trade practice. 6. The counter is that the complainant never approached the sales manager or the respondent to buy the vehicle for the price offered. So the manager did not tell him that the general offer was to solicit possible buyers. There was no general offer to the effect that the bike would be sold at Rs.9999/-. So the complainant did not realize the advertisement or he is misinterpreting the same. So there is no trade gimmick or unfair trade practice in this case. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The complainant states that seeing the advertisement he approached the Sales Manager of the respondent firm and revealed his intention to buy the vehicle for the price advertised. But the respondent denies it. They have stated that the complainant never approached the Sales Manager to buy the bike. But no steps have been taken by the complainant to prove his case. 9. The Mathrubhoomi daily dated 5.5.08 wherein the impugned advertisement was published is marked as Ext. P1. It is perused. A star mark can be visible and it is also printed on the side that ‘conditions apply finance at the sole discretion of the financier processing fee extra’. The rate of interest, loan amount, period and monthly instalment are also shown in the advertisement. Hence on seeing the advertisement no one can say that the general offer is to sell the bike for Rs.9999/-. The complainant rather misunderstood the advertisement. Hence no unfair trade practice can be seen against the respondent. 10. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 21st day of May 2010.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | | 
