IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
C.D.NO. 27/2015.
Shri P.K. Dash, President, Smt. Arati Das, Lady Member, and P.Ch. Mahapatra, Member.
Ratan Lal Modi, aged about 55 Years,
S/O. Satyanarayan Modi,
Dharamsala Road, Word No.5,
Post/P.S/Dist/- Deogarh. …. Complainant.
Versus
- The General Manager,
Utkal Automobiles Ltd.,
(Utksal Hyundia), Plot No.517, N.H.5,
Pahal, Bhubaneswar-752101. …. Opp.Party.
For the Complainant: - D.K.Mohapatra and K.B.Meher,Advocates.
For the Opp.Party :- B.P.Sarangi and S.Rath,Advocates.
DATE OF HEARING; 03.06.2015, DATE OF ORDER: 03.06.2015.
SRI PRABHAT KANT DASH, PRESIDENT:- The genus of the petition , interalia lies in the fact that , the complainant has not been paid the exchange bonus for his old vehicle during purchase of his new vehicle from O.P.1 who is a dealer of Hyundai car . Succistinctly facts of the case is that , complainant Sri Ratan Lal Modi , aged about 55 years , Son of Satyanarayan Modi is a permanent resident of Deogarh Municipality purchased a Car of make Hyundai I20 (ASTA 1.4 DSL BSIV from the Opp.Party M/S Utkal Automobiles (Utkal Hyundai) Plot No.517 ,N.H.5 , Pahal , Bhubaneswar on 3.2.2014 in the quotation issued by the Opp.Party on 24.1.2014 it has been reflected the price of the car is Rs.8,50,608/- carrying a provision for exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand ) subject to submission of form required documents . Further complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand ) as an advance file booking the vehicle . After the transaction was final he noticed that the neither the promise exchanged bonus nor the advance Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand ) has been adjusted in the final billing of the Opp.Party .
Opp.Party in his reply have mainly contended that complainant has failed to substantiate his claim of exchange bonus by submitting documents of transaction of his old vehicle , a pre requisite to avail exchange bonus in cash of outhouse exchange . It is further contended that, advanced amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand ) have been duly adjusted in the final billing .However we could not find out any outhouse exchange claim in the complaint petition .
On perusal of documents in the records and facts brought in to the notice of this forum it is found that, there is provision of outhouse exchange in which if a customer sold his vehicle somewhere outside within six month of time and all the pre requisites documents required for exchange should be submitted in due time frame of exchange claim refund would be process soon the claim is passed. The time frame being up to 30 days before or 105 days after new car invoice is confirmed. There is no evidence as to the fact of transaction of the old car within the time frame and pree requisites in availing exchange bonus have been adduced by the complainant his entitlability does not arise . On the other hand in the quotation furnished by the Opp.Party ex-show room price has been stated Rs.7,93,487/- deducting Rs.,10,000/- of cash discount and including Rs.43,674/- towards registration and other misc. expenses , Rs.20,447/- towards insurance and Rs.3,000/- for stock handling charges in toto the cost of the vehicle comes to Rs.8,50,608/- but in the retail invoice it has been shown the cost of the vehicle as Rs.7,83,497/- against Rs.7,93,497/- . In para -8 of the complaint petition the complainant has averred that , the complainant had availed the advance of Rs.10,000/- so also the documents filed by the Opp.Party in Enx.2 as the e-mail hard copy communication between the complainant and the Opp.Party further shows that the complainant had tender an option to an extended warranty for two years at the time of delivery of the vehicle against the bonus discount amount which is clear that there certain hidden talk and contract between the complainant and the Opp.Party which depicted a completely new factual aspects to the case pre vericating to the original claim of the complainant negating the original claim itself .This very clearly shows that the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- have been adjusted in the final billing . We hold there is no deficiency in service in the instant case. The complaint petition is disallowed .No cost as to litigation neither compensation prayed is awarded.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 3rd day of June, 2015 under my hand and seal of this forum.
I agree, I agree,
(Arati Das) ( P.C.Mahapatra) ( P.K.Dash)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected by me.
PRESIDENT.
.
