DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.28/2009

Bejoy Frederick,

S/o.Frederick,

Eden House, Kallikkad,

Pallippuram.P.O,

Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad – 678006. - Complainant

(By Adv.Girish K Nochulli)

Vs

1. Palghat Automotive (P) Ltd.,

5/428, Marutharode,

Koottupatha,

Palakkad, Kerala – 678007.

(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)

2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

Regd. Office Plot No.H1.SIPCOT,

Industrial Park, Sri Perumbadur,

Chennai - 602 105. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Case of the complainant in brief:-

1^st opposite party has made an offer of exchange of old car with 'new Hyundai i 10 car' with exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant accepted the offer and purchased a new Hyundai i 10 car by exchanging his old Maruti 800 car vide Invoice dtd.01/07/2008. Complainant submitted all the relevant documents including the particulars of registration of old and new car before the 1^st opposite party on the date of purchase itself. The grievance of the complainant is that so far the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was not released by the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party and hence 2^nd opposite party is also vicariously liable for payment of exchange bonus to the

complainant. Complainant has demanded the said amount by way of registered lawyer notice dtd.03/01/2009. Neither of the opposite parties replied even though notice was received by them. According to the complainant, the acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence the complaint.

2. 2^nd opposite party was set ex-parte. 1^st opposite party filed version contending the following. Complainant is entitled to exchange bonus subject to the terms and conditions. Accordingly complainant has to submit copy of the RC book of the new vehicle as well as RC book of the old vehicle. The said documents has to be sent to the 2^nd opposite party within 3 months who inturn will release the amount. In the present case, complainant has registered the new car on 01/07/08. Complainant has submitted the RC book of the transferred old vehicle only on 14.11.2008 showing the date of transfer as 15/09/08. 1^st opposite party forwarded the papers to the 2^nd opposite party immediately on receipt of the papers from the complainant. On suspicion regarding the transfer date found in the copy of the RC of the transferred vehicle, 1^st opposite party enquired the same and found that the complainant has transferred the old vehicle only on 07/11/08 and endorsed in the RC book only on 13/11/08 and not on 15/09/08. Meanwhile the 2^nd opposite party has credited Rs.10,000/- being the exchange bonus to the 1^st opposite party's account subject to the confirmation of date of transfer in the RC book. On ascertainment of the fraud committed by the complainant, 1^st opposite party made arrangements to return the amount to the 2^nd opposite party. As the complainant has committed fraud by altering the date of transfer and has not submitted the papers required for exchange bonus in time, he is not entitled for any exchange bonus. Opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Complainant and opposite party filed their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A4 series marked on the side of complainant where as Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

5. Issues No.1 & 2:

The specific case of the complainant is that even though complainant has submitted the RC of the new and old car on the date of purchase of the new car itself, 1^st opposite party has not released the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- as offered. The contention of the 1^st opposite party on the other hand is that complainant has committed fraud in the date of transfer of old vehicle in the copy of the RC book for availing the exchange bonus.

6. Heard both parties and perused the relevant documents on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased from the 1^st opposite party and there was an offer of exchange bonus for Rs.10,000/-. As per the complaint, complainant has submitted RC copy of the new car purchased as well as that of the old car on the date of purchase of the new car i.e. on 01/07/2008. No supporting documents has been produced by the complainant to prove the same. Moreover, on verification of Ext.B1 which is the copy of the RC of the new car, it is seen that the Registering Authority has signed the same on 03/07/08. So it is not possible to submit the copy on 01/07/08. The counsel for the complainant heavily relies on clause 9 of the order booking form wherein it is stated that in case of exchange 'old car RC book should be in the name of the buyer or spouse, copy to be submitted within 3 days of booking'. Interpreting the said clause counsel argued that complainant submitted the said particulars on the date of purchase of the new car itself and hence he is entitled for the offer. According to opposite party, documents showing the transfer of the old vehicle has to be submitted within 3 months to the 2^nd opposite party for availing the exchange bonus. It can be seen that the complainant has not taken any steps to call for any document to show that the old vehicle was sold by the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party has caused delay in the sale of the vehicle. Opposite parties has specifically alleged that complainant has committed fraud in the date of transfer in the copy of registration certificate and that was the reason for not disbursing the exchange bonus. Even though this forum is not competent to decide this aspect, on the mere perusal of Ext.B2 & B3 it can be seen that the date of transfer has been altered. It is relevant to note that the marking of the said documents was not objected by the complainant.

8.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to establish a strong case in his favour. In the absence of

any convincing and cogent evidence, we are not in a position to attribute deficiency in

service on the part of opposite parties.

9. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

10. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Order booking form dtd.23/06/08

Ext.A2 – Copy of Retail Invoice dtd.01/07/08 issued by 1^st opposite party to complainant

Ext.A3 – Delivery Receipt & Gate Pass dtd.02/07/08 of 1^st opposite party

Ext.A4 – Lawyer notice dtd.03/01/09 sent by complainant to opposite parties

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Hyundai i10 No.KL-09 W3108

Ext.B2 - Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Maruthi 800 No.KL-09 H4422

Ext.B3 - Photo copy of Registration Certificate of Maruthi 800 No.KL-09 H4422

Forum's exhibit

Nil

Costs (Not Allowed)