STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.  Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,  through its authorized signatory, A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044

2.  Hyundai Motor India Limited, North Regional Office, DLF Tower-B, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Tech Park, Chandigarh.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

1.  Parveen Kumar  s/o Late Sh.Hari Dutt Sharma, R/o 2291-A, Sector  27-C, Chandigarh.

2.  M/s Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd., Number 7, Industrial Area, Phase- I, Chandigarh-160002

                                                                        ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

              SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:   Ms.Simran Singh, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants.

               Sh.Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate for respondent No.1

               Sh.N.P.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.08.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- II, U.T.,  Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as under:-

“In view of the above, we allow the complaint and direct OPs No.1 & 2 to jointly & severally pay the amount Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus to the complainant as per their offer.  Further OPs No.1 & 2 will also jointly & severally pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation as well as cost of litigation.  However the complaint qua OP-3 is dismissed as per rulings of the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh and other Courts.  This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP 1 & 2 shall jointly & severally be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of order till the date of actual payment”.

2.               The complaint against Opposite Party No3., was dismissed

3.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent no.1) had purchased a Hyundai Santro GLS Car, from Opposite Party No.3 (now respondent no.2) on 03.10.2008. An Exchange Discount/Bonus of Rs.15,000/-,  was offered to the complainant, at the time of sale.  The amount was payable to the complainant, after he had sold his old car, and furnished a copy of the Registration Certificate (R.C.), transferred in the name of new owner.  It was stated that the complainant, sold his old car and the R.C. was transferred, in the name of new owner on 22.1.2009.  He then applied for the payment of Exchange Discount/Bonus, to the Opposite Parties, but his claim was rejected by Opposite Party No.1, on account of the reason “Trf. RC after 105 Days”. It was stated that this condition had not been  disclosed to the complainant, at the time of purchase of the new car. When the complainant, informed Opposite Party No.1, about the same, it refused to redress his grievance.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), claiming Exchange Discount/Bonus of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest and compensation from the Opposite Parties, was filed.

4.               Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, put in appearance, and filed their joint reply. It was admitted that the car was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.3, on 03.10.2008. It was stated that Exchange Bonus was a sales promotional scheme, launched for the benefit of prospective purchaser of cars, who were looking for funding the new car, by sale of the existing old car. It was further stated that the grant of Exchange Bonus was subject to the terms & conditions, which were not complied with, by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was required to submit certain documents, for the settlement of final claim of Exchange Bonus.  These documents included (i) New Car Invoice (ii) Old Car RC before transfer, in the name of the customer (iii) Old Car RC in name other than that of blood relation and (iv) Transfer of Ownership Fee Receipt (in case transfer date not mentioned on transferred RC). It was further stated that the exchange bonus claim was valid only, if, all the documents were received by Opposite Party No.1, within 120 days of sale and also the transfer of old car, was to be effected 30 days prior, or till 105 days, after the purchase of new car. It was further stated that the complainant, had not complied with the terms and conditions mentioned above, and, as such, his claim was rightly repudiated. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.               Opposite Party No.3, in its reply, pleaded that it being only the agent of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, could not be made liable, as no cause of action, accrued against it, on account of the reason that the exchange bonus, was to be paid,  by the Manufacturer i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, only.  It was stated that the requisite documents, which ensured that the Exchange Bonus, was payable to the complainant, were not submitted by him, within the stipulated time. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, he (complainant), was not entitled to the Exchange Bonus. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, or it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties,  and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was  filed by the appellants/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

9.               Alongwith the appeal, an application, for condonation of delay of 89 days, as per the applicants/appellants (as per office report 78 days), in filing the appeal was filed. The ground taken up, in the application, was to the effect, that the applicants/appellants, being manufacturing unit, having its Head Office at Chennai, it took a lot of time for procuring necessary approval/sanction, and, accordingly, the appeal could not be  filed, within the statutory period of 30 days.  Accordingly, a prayer, referred to above, was made.

10.            In reply to the application, it was stated that the order was pronounced,  by the District Forum on 09.08.2011, and a copy of the same, was forwarded to the applicants/appellants/Opposite Parties on 31.08.2011. It was further stated that, as per the averments, contained in the application, no sufficient cause was constituted, for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal.

11.            We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

12.            The Counsel for the applicants/appellants, submitted that delay in filing the appeal, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but only on account of the time consumed for obtaining necessary approval/sanction from the Head Office, for filing the same.  On merits, it was submitted that since the old car, as per the terms and conditions of the Exchange Bonus was not transferred, within a period of 105 days, from the date of purchase of a new car, respondent no.1/complainant, did not become entitled to such bonus. It was further submitted that the claim of respondent no.1/complainant, was rightly rejected.  It was further submitted that the District Forum, erred in accepting the complaint.

13.            On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was intentional and deliberate, and no sufficient cause was constituted, for condonation of the same. On merits, it was submitted that the terms and conditions  of the exchange bonus, were never disclosed to respondent no.1/complainant, at the time of purchase of a new car, and, as such, he did not know about the same. He further submitted that even according to the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the time stipulated was 120 days, whereas, according to respondent no.2/Opposite Party no.3, time stipulated was 105 days, for the submission of the R.C. of the transferred vehicle. He further submitted that the transferred R.C. is dated 22.01.2009, and an intimation to the Opposite Parties, was given by respondent no.1/ complainant immediately. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld.

14.            First coming to the application, for condonation of delay, it may be stated here, that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In the application, the only ground, taken up, was that the Head Office of the applicants/appellants, being at Chennai, it consumed a lot of time, in obtaining the necessary sanction/approval, and, thus, delay occurred, in filing the appeal.  This ground does not constitute a sufficient cause, for condoning the delay. The applicants/appellants knew about the pronouncement of the order. A copy of the order, was also supplied to them. If the Officials of the applicants/appellants, did not act diligently, in obtaining the necessary sanction/approval/permission from the Head Office, within the shortest possible time, it could not be said that the delay in filing the appeal, was on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the applicants/appellants. Thus, deliberate and intentional delay, was attributable to the applicants/appellants, in filing the appeal, after 89 days (78 days as per office report). The statutory period, for filing an appeal is 30 days. The delay in filing the instant appeal, was about three times, more than the statutory  period of instituting  the same. Since no sufficient cause is constituted, from the averments, contained in the application, delay of 89 days (78 days as per office report), cannot be condoned. The application, is accordingly dismissed.

15.            Now, coming to the merits of appeal, it may be stated here, that the same is also liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In the complaint, in para no. 5, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated by respondent no.1/complainant, that no such condition, that the old car should be transferred and the transferred R.C. should be submitted, within 105 days, of the purchase of the new car, was disclosed to him, by respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3, as the said car was purchased from it. Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3, in para no.5 of its reply, stated that the contents of para no.5, are admitted, being a matter of record. It was further stated that the preliminary submissions be read, as part and parcel of this para, the same being not reproduced for the sake of brevity. There was no specific denial of the factum, that respondent no.1/complainant, was not told about the terms and conditions of the Exchange Bonus, at the time, he purchased a new car from respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3. Even, no document, was produced, on record, by the appellants/Opposite Parties, showing that the terms and conditions of the Exchange Bonus, were intimated to respondent no.1/complainant, vide a separate letter. Even, no document was produced, on record, showing that the terms and conditions of the Exchange Bonus, were disclosed and explained to respondent no.1/complainant, and his signatures were obtained on the same. Under these circumstances, the version of respondent no.1/complainant, duly corroborated through his affidavit,  to the effect, that he was not disclosed the terms and conditions of the Exchange Bonus, that the RC of  the old car should be transferred within 105 days, from the date of purchase of a new car, can be said to be correct.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that respondent no.1/complainant, was not disclosed about the condition, that the old car must be transferred, within a period of 105 days, from the date of purchase of a new car, and, as such, his claim could not be repudiated, on this ground. The rejection of the claim of the complainant, regarding the grant of Exchange Bonus, thus, constituted deficiency in service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

16.            The matter can also be looked at, from another angle. Even if, it is presumed, though not admitted,  that the terms and conditions, were disclosed to respondent no.1/complainant, and he was aware, that he would only be entitled to get the Exchange Bonus, if he transferred his old vehicle, within 105 days, from the date of purchase of a new car, the time was not the essence of the contract. The new Registration Certificate, is dated 22.01.2009. An intimation, in this regard, to the Opposite Parties, was given by respondent no.1/complainant, immediately. It means, that the transferred R.C. of the old vehicle was supplied by respondent no.1/complainant, to the Opposite Parties, within 111 days, from the date of purchase of a new car. According to the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the time stipulated was 120 days, whereas, according to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3, the time stipulated was 105 days. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, are the manufacturers, whereas, Opposite Party No.3, was the dealer. The time gap, between 105 days, and 120 days, was only kept, to ensure that the dealer must be able to forward the documents, to the manufacturer, in time. In the instant case, respondent no.1/complainant, submitted the R.C. of the transferred car, within 111 days, from the date of purchase of a new car, to respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3, being the dealer. Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.3, had, thus, sufficient time, to send intimation, with regard to the same, to the appellants/Opposite Party No.1 and 2, before the  expiry of period of 120 days.  Had the time been the essence of the contract, then two periods, referred to above, would not have been stipulated.  On this ground too, the rejection of the claim was invalid.

17.            The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice, in denying the legitimate claim of the complainant of Exchange Bonus, on flimsy grounds and by resorting to technicalities. The findings, of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

18.            No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.

19.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

20.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is dismissed, being barred by time, as also on merits, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

21.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

22.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

15.02.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Rg.