BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 44/2008 Filed on 06..03..2008
Dated: 29..11..2008
Complainant: P. Prabhakaran Nair, Karthika, Maruthoor, Neyyattinkara-P.O (By Adv. Pramod J. Dev) Opposite parties:
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Regional Office Hyundai Motor Plaza NP 54, Development Plot, Thiri-Vi-Ka Industries Estate, Ekkadethongal, Chennai, Represented by its Regional Manager.
(By Adv. G. Jayakumar)
M/s. Popular Motor World Private Ltd., Popular-Hyundai, Near Karamana Bridge, Neeramankara, Kaimanam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Manager.
This O.P having been heard on 01..11..2008, the Forum on 29..11..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complaint has been filed by one P. Prabhakaran Nair against M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd and M/s. Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd., alleging the following: The complainant had purchased a new 'Santro xing xo' car by exchanging his old Maruthi 800 car from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party's executive had informed the complainant, before purchase of the car that, there are many schemes for those who purchase a new car of Santro make from the 2nd opposite party especially if the customer exchanges his old car of any make and purchases a new one from the 2nd opposite party and one among the various schemes was cash exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. And accordingly the complainant decided to purchase a new Santro car by exchanging his old Maruti car and opted for cash exchange bonus scheme of Rs.10,000/- and the complainant had complied with the necessary conditions for the same. Thus the 2nd opposite party issued a communication stating that the complainant is qualified for exchange bonus scheme as per HMIL policy and the above said claim will be released after receipt of reimbursement from the Hyundai Company. But inspite of several repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, the 2nd opposite party did not even respond to any of those requests and demands. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs.10,000/- along with compensation and costs and for an order directing the opposite parties not to indulge in such unfair trade practice.
2. Opposite parties remain ex-parte.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts.P1 to P9. He has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is eligible for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii): The purchase of one Hyundai Santro Xo by the complainant has been proved by Ext.P6, the copy of certificate of registration of the said vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-20-7568. Ext.P9 which is the delivery note issued by Popular proves the fact that the Popular has taken delivery of one used Maruti 800, 99 model bearing Reg.No.KL.01.9210 from the complainant. Ext.P1 reveals that the complainant is eligible for exchange bonus on submission of RC Book copy of new vehicle, RC Book copy of old vehicle (vehicle No.KL.01 Q 9210) and transferred page of old RC Book, within 30 days from the date of delivery. According to the complainant, he has submitted all the necessary documents in time that were required for getting the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties have not challenged the same and hence this stands uncontroverted. Since the opposite party has not contested or denied the same, we are left with no other option than to accept the submission of the complainant. The materials on record and the affidavit of the complaint establish the case of the complainant. The opposite parties were obliged to refund Rs.10,000/- towards exchange bonus as per their advertisement and as admitted by them and now that since the complainant has claimed the above amount, the opposite parties cannot escape the liability of refunding of the amount along with compensation for the difficulties he had to undergo for the same. The complainant has succeeded in proving his complaint.
6. In the light of the above, the Forum also finds that the act of the opposite parties in giving false assurance for attracting consumers amounts to unfair trade practice.
In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance 1 month.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 29th day of November, 2008.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No.44/2008 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 05..07..2007 issued by the 2nd opp. Party P2 : Copy of letter dated 15..12..2007 issued by the complainant P3 : Copy of advocate notice dated 23..01..2008 to the opp. Parties P4(a) : Photocopy of acknowledgment card dated 25..01..08 P4(b) : " acknowledgment card P4(c) : " acknowledgment card dated 28..01..2008 P4(d) : " acknowledgment card dated 30..01..2008 P5 : " newspaper advertisement published by the 2nd opp. Party P6 : certificate of registration P7 : " Proforma invoice dated 22..06..2007 P8 : " sanctioning letter issued to the complainant by the Bank P9 : " delivery note dated 05..07..2007.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
