DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC.9/2008

M.Ravi,

S/o.K.A.Krishnankutty,

No.12, 'Saranya',

TKV Nagar Bank Colony,

Kalmandapam,

Palakkad – 678001. - Complainant

(By Sri.M.Ramachandran,

General Secretary,

Consumer Protection Council of Palakkad)

Vs

1. The Branch Head,

KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd.,

Vithuni Road,

Nurani, Palakkad.

(By Adv.P.G.Devadas)

2. The Deputy General Manager,

KTC Automobiles (P) Ltd.,

Guruvayoor Road,

Poonkunnam, Thrissur.

(By Adv.P.G.Devadas)

3. The Regional Head,

M/s.Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

South Regional Office,

Chennai 600032.

(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)

4. The CEO,

M/s.Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,

A30, Mohand Co-op Industrial Estate,

Phase I, Madhm Road,

New Delhi 44. - Opposite parties.

(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Facts leading to the filing of the complaint is as follows:

Complainant purchased a car on 02/07/2007 from the opposite party No.2 through 1^st opposite party, who is the service centre of 2^nd opposite party at Palakkad. At the time of purchase opposite party offered an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- which according to the complainant was the main reason for the purchase. Advertisement offering the exchange bonus was published in Malayala Manorama daily dtd.15/03/2008. Relevant documents for claiming the exchange bonus were submitted with the dealer. So far complainant has not received any amount. Hence the complaint.

2. All opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. According to opposite parties 1 and 2, the claim received from the complainant was duly forwarded to the 4^th respondent. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, exchange bonus is an offer made by the manufacturer, the release of which and has to be decided by the manufacturer alone. 4^th opposite party disallowed the claim as it was found that the complainant was not eligible for the same.

3. According to the contentions of opposite parties 3 and 4, complainant is not entitled for the exchange bonus. As per the policy of exchange, complainant has to transfer his old vehicle within 60 days of invoice of the new car. Transfer of the old car prior to the invoicing of the new car would make the customer ineligible for the exchange bonus. According to them, in the present case, as per the information available from the retailing dealer, complainant sold his old vehicle on 10/05/2007. Complainant purchased the new Hyundai Santro XL on 02/07/2007 from opposite parties. Hence complainant is not eligible for exchange bonus. Complainant's e-mail letters were duly replied by the opposite parties. No such lawyer notice as stated by the complainant was received by the opposite parties. As the complainant is not eligible for the same, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

4. Complainant filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A5 marked. Opposite parties filed affidavit. Ext.B1 to B4 marked.

5. 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?

Point No.1:

6. The question to be decided is whether the non payment of exchange bonus by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. We have carefully gone through all the relevant documents on record and heard both parties in detail.

7. Induced by an advertisement published by 1^st opposite party in the Malayala Manorama daily dtd.15/03/2008, complainant decided to purchase the vehicle. Advertisement published which is marked as Ext.A2 does not reveal the terms and conditions of exchange bonus. The reason stated by the opposite parties for non payment of exchange bonus is that the complainant did not satisfy the eligibility conditions for availing the bonus. Whether the relevant information regarding the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus is made known to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle is a relevant fact. Opposite parties has not adduced any evidence regarding this aspect. Going through the relevant documents produced by the complainant, it can be seen that the complainant has submitted all the required documents together with the undertaking for exchange bonus. Complainant has stated the date of sale of his old car in the said undertaking which is marked as Ext.A3. Nothing has been concealed by the complainant in the said undertaking. Opposite parties has no case that complainant concealed the fact that the vehicle was sold prior to the purchase of the new car. Opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the whole documents together with the undertaking for exchange bonus wherein it is specifically stated that Rs.10,000/- shall be released within 30 days of submission of the documents. Here it is relevant to note that in Ext.A3 (undertaking for exchange bonus), inter alia nothing is mentioned regarding the time stipulated for transfer of old vehicle.

8. From the available evidence on record, it can only be inferred that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties made believe the complainant that he is eligible for the exchange bonus and thereby induced him to buy a new vehicle. Clearly it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

9. According to 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, in Ext.B1, guidelines to the dealer regarding the terms and conditions of exchange bonus it is specifically stated that the old vehicle is to be sold within 60 days of the invoice of the new vehicle. Knowing this fact well in advance 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties caused the complainant believe that he is eligible for the offer. It is true from the records that complainant is not eligible for the exchange bonus. But the act of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in not disclosing the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

10. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties as they have acted as per rules. Hence they are exonerated from liability.

11. In the result complaint allowed. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

12. Pronounced in the open court on this the 14^th day of August, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photo copy of Invoice dtd.02/07/2007 issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A2 – Advertisement published in the Malayala Manorama daily dtd.15/03/2008

Ext.A3 – Copy of undertaking given by the complainant dtd.16/08/2007

Ext.A4 – Copy of certificate of registration

Ext.A5 – Certificate of registration

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of exchange bonus policy conditions

Ext.B2 – Copy of registration certificate

Ext.B3 – Copy of invoice dtd.02/07/2007

Ext.B4 – Copy of e-mail sent by opposite parties to complainant dtd.21/02/2008

Costs (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings