STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.457 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution:20.12.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  :08.03.2011

Hyundai Motors India Limited, A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044 through its Authorised Signatory.

……Appellant.

V e r s u s

1.     Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Bindra wife of S. Ajit Singh resident of H.No.230, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

2.     M/s. Charishma Goldwheel Private Limited through its Managing Director, #7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160001.

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                        S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                    Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                 This appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed and the OP/Appellant was directed to pay to the complainant the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-; compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,500/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the Appellant was made liable to pay the same along with penal interest @12% per annum since the date of filing the complaint i.e. 5.3.2010 till the amount is paid to the complainant.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased a brand new i10 Era car on 20.2.2009 from OP No.3 and with a view to avail the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-, as offered at the time of purchase of the new vehicle, she sold her old Santro Car bearing registration No.CH-01-Y-8806 to one Deepak Kataria. As per the complainant she completed all the requisite formalities for purchase of new vehicle and for the said exchange bonus, she was issued a Sale Certificate as also a Temporary Registration Certificate (Annexures C-5 and C-6) on 24.2.2009. The complainant made payment of Rs.2,88,681/- to Respondent No.2 vide receipt dated 25.2.2009. (Annexure C-7). The complainant, it was averred, also submitted the copies of Registration Certificate of the old vehicle, new vehicle and the transferred old vehicle to new owner, in the months of April-May 2009 itself, copies of which were annexed as Annexure C-8 (Colly).  It was next averred that every time  respondent No.2 used to assure the complainant that her claim for exchange bonus had been sent to their Head office and the same would come within short period. The complainant also sent an Email to customer care service of OPs ON 1.6.2009 vide Annexure C-9, in reply to which, OPs vide their Emails dated 2.6.2009 asked the complainant to coordinate with respondent No.2. The complainant also received an Email dated 4.6.2009 (Annexure C-11) from OP No.3 wherein evasive averments were made. As per the complainant, when she did not receive any response from the OPs, she served a legal notice dated 2.7.2009 upon respondent No.2 vide Annexure C-13. Alleging the non payment of her claim of exchange bonus as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint.

3.                     In its reply, OP No.1/Appellant apart from admitting the factual aspects of the case, pleaded that the complainant had not supplied any documents to even respondent No.2 as required under the exchange bonus scheme and in the absence of the said documents, the complainant was not entitled to exchange bonus. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In its separate reply, OP/respondent No.2 pleaded that that the scheme of exchange bonus was a creation of the manufacturer i.e. OP No.1 and it had no direct or indirect role in the said scheme except for acting as a collector of the requisite documents, which were sent to OP No.1 from the complainant. It was pleaded that the case of the complainant along with the requisite documents for release of exchange bonus was taken up with OP No.1 several times followed by reminders but OP No.1 did not release the said bonus to the complainant. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, this OP also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     OPs No.2 and 4 were deleted by the learned District Forum from the array of OPs vide order dated 10.3.2010 in view of the statement made by counsel for the complainant to give up the said OPs.

6.                 The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

7.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide the impugned order dated 26.10.2010 as already mentioned in the opening para of the judgment.

8.                 The OP No.1 - Hyundai Motor India limited has challenged the impugned order through this appeal.

9.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10.               The contention of the OP/Appellant is that the complete documents required for passing the claim were not submitted to them by the complainant nor the old car was transferred within time given by the appellant for claiming exchange bonus. This contention is opposed by the complainant/respondent. Their contention is that in fact the complete documents had been given to OP/Respondent No.2 in April-May 2009. This fact was mentioned by the complainant in the e-mails submitted by her to the OPs/appellant. There is no dispute about it that the old car was to be transferred within 30 days prior to or 105 days after or the purchase of the new car and the documents were to be submitted within 180 days of the purchase of new car. The new car was purchased admittedly on 24.2.2009 vide Annexure C-5. The contention of the complainant is that the old car was taken from her by Sh. Manpreet Singh on 20.2.2009 vide Annexure C-1, it was sold for Rs.80,000/- and this amount was treated as and advance for the purchase of new car as reflected in Annexure C-2, Receipts (Annexures C-3 and C-4) were issued to the complainant in this respect. The learned counsel also referred to the copy of the Registration Certificate of the old car before the transfer as well as after the transfer of the same in favour of Mehar Singh. The complainant had, therefore, satisfied all the conditions to claim Exchange Bonus. The complete documents were given to respondent No.2 but it appears, they did not forward the same to OP No.1 and ultimately a notice dated 2.7.2009 was issued by the complainant requesting for expediting the payment of the exchange bonus. It was thereafter that respondent No.2 sent the documents to OP no.1 vide Annexure C-14. The sending of documents to OP No.1 proves firstly that the old car had been sold within the time prescribed by OP No.1 for claiming Exchange Bonus and secondly that the complete documents had been submitted by the complainant to respondent No.2 and the same were forwarded by them to OP No.1 within the period prescribed for claiming the said bonus. It was nowhere the contention of OP No.1 appellant or OP/Respondent No.2, if the complainant had not submitted the complete documents or if the sale of the old car was made after the prescribed period or if the claim was submitted after it had become beyond time. However, the OP/Respondent No.2 submitted a reply (Annexure C-13) alleging that Registration Certificate of old vehicle; Registration Certificate of new vehicle and Registration Certificate on transfer of old vehicle were not supplied. Had the same not been supplied, the OP/Respondent No.2 would not have forwarded the documents to OP No.1 and rather would have intimated to the complainant through a letter immediately after some of the documents were submitted to them asking for the remaining documents to claim Exchange Bonus or at least when the complainant was reminding it through Emails (Annexures C-9 dated 1.6.2009 and C-12 dated 5.6.2009 (Annexure C-14). It was, however, not done by OP/Respondent No.2 even when they sent reply through Email dated 4.6.2009. The learned counsel for OP/Respondent No.2 is unable to mention the date on which the (incomplete) documents were received by them. He is unable to mention as to what documents were received. Admittedly, it did not issue any receipt with respect to the said documents and therefore, subsequently could allege as is being done by them that the complete documents had not been received.  There is no doubt about it that the old car was sold through their own employee Sh. Manpreet Singh and therefore, the documents were very well in their knowledge.

11.               The above facts show that the documents had already been supplied within the period required after sale of the old car and there was no deficiency on the part of the complainant.

12.               The delay was caused by the OPs, which after receiving the documents sat over the same and did not pay the amount. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly held in Para No.11 of the impugned judgment that the documents complete in all respects had already been sent to OP No.1 and OP No.1 intentionally and with malafide intentions withheld taking a decision thereon. It was also rightly held that the complainant was entitled to the exchange bonus and the excuses that the complete documents were not sent by the complainant are being introduced by OP No.1 to justify delay in the matter. OP No.1/appellant was, therefore, rightly held guilty of adopting unfair trade practice thereby causing harassment to the complainant by withholding the exchange bonus to which she was entitled. The learned District Forum rightly directed the OP No.1/appellant to pay the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,500/-.

13.               We do no find any drawback in the impugned order, which is perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

14.               Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

8^th March 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.457 of 2010)

Argued by:            Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Sh. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                    Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Dated the 8^th day of March, 2011.

ORDER

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Ad/-