By Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member
Case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a Hyundayi Sandro GLS car from the 1st opposite party. The car is numbered as KL10-AB-7082. At the time of purchasing the new car the second opposite party was an offer of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus. The representative of the 1st opposite party advised the complainant that to get the exchange bonus old car is to be sold first to a third party other than his blood relation. Then the Complainant sold his car to one Mr. Ayyappan. Then the complainant purchased the new car and he produced all documents including copy of Registration Certificate to prove he had sold his old car and he demanded the exchange offer. At the time of delivery of new car, the opposite party No.1 promised the cheque of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus will be sent to the complainant within 15 days from the office of the 2nd opposite party. But the said bonus has not been received so far to the complainant. The complainant visited the office of 1st opposite party, and as per the instruction of 1st opposite party complainant had sent necessary documents to second opposite party. Even then no such exchange bonus was received to the complainant. Complainant sent two letters along with all documents to the Sales Manager of 1st opposite party. But no written reply has been received. Then the Complainant sent a lawyer notice to 2nd opposite party. This notice also no reply was sent by the opposite party. This irresponsible approach and attitude of the opposite parties are gross negligent and deficiency of service. Therefore complainant prayed that the Forum may be pleased to direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest for his exchange offer, an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and pain suffered, pay Rs.5,000/- as expenses.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 appeared and version filed, opposite party No.3 set exparte. In the version of opposite party No.1 & 2 denied all allegations and averments except those which are expressly admitted. 1st opposite party admitting the purchase of a Hyundai Sandro Car with register number KL10-AB-7082 from this opposite party on 27-5-2008. The 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the car had introduced a scheme of exchange bonus at the time of purchase of the car. One of the conditions of the scheme was the exchange bonus can only be avail if the old vehicle is transferred to a third party by the purchaser of the new car within 75 days of purchase. The relevant documents along with claim be submitted within 90 days of sale. As per the registration details of motor vehicle department, it is known as the complainant has transferred the old car long before the purchase of the new car and the latest transfer of the said vehicle by an another person is after 15 months of the purchase. So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as exchange bonus. The complainant has never submitted any papers to this opposite party. So there is no negligent on the part of opposite party No.2 and is liable to be dismiss the complaint.
Opposite party No.2 states that the complainant has suppressed a material fact that the complainant did not comply the terms and conditions for avail the exchange bonus. Further states that this opposite party has not received any documents for the exchange bonus claim. As per the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme the complainant was required to get the old car transferred within 75 days of purchase of the new Hyundai vehicle which he fail to do. Further states that the complainant got his car transferred on 07-9-2009 and purchase the new car on 27-5-2008 that means clearly after a period of 468 days from the date of purchase of new car. So the complaint is dismissed.
4. Evidence adduced in the side of Complainant as affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A8 are marked in the side of complainant. opposite party No.1 & 2 are filed counter affidavit with documents Ext.B1 to B4 marked for opposite party No.1 and Ext.B5 marked for opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 filed a petition for cross examination of the petitioner, allowed and examined as PW1.
5. The following points are considered in this matter:-
a) Whether any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in the side opposite parties?
b) If so what is the relief and cost?
Point (a):-
The complainant as well as the opposite parties are admitting the delivery of the new Hyundai Sandro GLS Car NO-KL-10-AB-7082 from the opposite party No.1 on 27-5-2008. Ext.A3 documents mentioned the delivery date was on 27-5-200 8 and the registration date was on 31-5-2008. There is no dispute upon the delivery of new vehicle. But the sale of old vehicle No.KL-10-E-10 was disputed. According to Ext. B1 documents, Guide lines No.2 “the Exchange claim would be availed only if the old car is transferred within 75 days of new car purchase” and No.5 of guidelines explain “an old car can be used to claim exchange only once by one owner”, and No.9 of Guideline says that the “exchange claim would be valued only if the claim complete in all respect is received at sales planning HMIL within 90 days from the date of sale”. According to Ext.A2 Registration Certificate book, it is issued on 23/01/2008, the old car KL.10.E.10 Premier Padmini Car was in the name of one Mr. Ayyappan on or before 23/01/2008. The new car purchased by the complainant on 27/5/2008. That means the Complainant had sold his old car minimum 124 days before he purchase of the new car. This is against the terms and conditions of opposite party No.2's exchange offer. Complaint and documents are shown only the delivery date, no booking date shown in any were. The statement of witness as പുതിയ കാര് purchase ചെയ്തശേഷം പഴയ കാര് 75 days-നുളളില് registration blood relation ഇല്ലാത്ത ആളുടെ പേരില് transfer ചെയ്യണം എന്നുളള condition എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല " എന്നും “””90 ദിവസത്തിനുളളില് transfer ചെയ്ത് രേഖകളെല്ലാം 1- എതൃകക്ഷിയെ ഏല്പിച്ച് അത് 2- എതൃകക്ഷിക്ക് എത്തിക്കണം എന്നും എന്നോട് പറഞ്ഞ് തന്നിട്ടില്ല.” This statements are not believable, because the Complainant is an educated person and working as insurance development officer. So we can say the Complainant did not fulfill the conditions of exchange bonus. So there is no deficiency of service in the side of opposite parties.
In the result we dismiss the complaint. No order to cost.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2011.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : P. Abdul Azeez, complainant.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8
Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the registration certificate in respect of KL10-E-10 dated, 20-7-1996 in name of complainant.
Ext.A2 : True Photostat of the registration certificate in respect of KL10-E-10 dated, 20-7-1996 in name of Ayyappan .
Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the registration certificate in respect of KL10-AB- 7082 dated, 20-7-1996
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 20-7-2008 from complainant to second
opposite party.
Ext.A5 : Letter dated, 15-9-2008 from complainant to second
opposite party.
Ext.A6 : Postal receipt dated, 17-9-2008 to second opposite party.
Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the lawyer notice dated, 18-01-2010 issued by complainant's
counsel to second opposite party.
Ext.A8 : Postal receipt dated, 19-01-2010 to second opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4
Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the guidelines for exchange claim by Hyundai Motor India Ltd
Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the registration details of Car No.KL-10-E-10 from Motor Vehicles Department w.e.f. 24-6-1996.
Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the registration details of Car No.KL-10-E-10 from Motor Vehicles Department w.e.f. 24-6-1996.
Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the registration details of Car No.KL-10-E-10 from Motor Vehicles Department w.e.f. 24-6-1996.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
