BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 122/2011 Filed on 11.04.2011

Dated: 31.01.2014

Complainant:

Dr. M. Radhakrishnan Unnithan, ‘Theertham’, T.C 6/2601(9), TRA 209, Vattiyoorkavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

                                  (By adv. S. Sajith)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Hilton Hyundai, Eanchakkal, Thiruvananthapuram-8.

1. The Manager, Hilton Hyundai, Sharmees Tower, Sasthamangalam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

(By adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar)

Addl. Opposite party:

1. The Hyundai Motors India Ltd., NP 54, Developed Plot, Thiru-v-ka, Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthengal, Guindy, Chennai-32.

This C.C having been heard on 07.01.2014, the Forum on 31.01.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he had approached the 2^nd opposite party to buy a Hyundai I 10 car and he exchanged his 2005 model Maruti Omni vehicle for Rs. 1,37,000/- and that the 2^nd opposite party had given a delivery note dated 19.04.2009.  The 2^nd opposite party had promised that the NRI offer of Rs. 6,000/- and the exchange offer of Rs. 15,000/- are given by them and they have to get the approval from 1^st opposite party.  On 14.05.2009 the 2^nd opposite party had accepted the copy of new RC Book from the complainant stating that the same had to be sent to the 1^st opposite party for availing these offers.  The complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party on three dates and on all these occasions the 2^nd opposite party told that they had sent all the papers to the 1^st opposite party and it is under process.  As the complainant had to go to his work place his daughter had registered a complaint with toll free number on 31.10.2009 and 30.12.2009.  Again he tried to contact the opposite parties from his work place several times and the opposite parties promised that these offers will be given to him but it will take some more time.  On 10.06.2010 also the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and also sent a registered letter on 18.06.2010 to the 1^st opposite party.  But there was no response from the 1^st opposite party and on 27.07.2010 a lawyer’s notice with acknowledgement due was sent to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party after receiving notice did not send any reply and 2^nd opposite party did not accept the same.  The irresponsible actions of both the opposite parties had caused severe mental pain and agony to the complainant and his family and the actions of both the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and also amounts to unfair trade practice for which both the opposite parties are equally liable to compensate.  Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- as exchange offer, Rs. 6,000/- as NRI offer and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony. 

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties accepted notice and filed version together and the additional 3^rd opposite party also filed version.

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed their version denying the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties had taken the old Maruti van in exchange for the new car.  These opposite parties had only arranged a second hand vehicle dealer for buying the complainant’s old vehicle and the delivery note was given only due to the insistence of the complainant.  It is submitted that all the offers like exchange bonus, NRI offer etc. are given by the manufacturer, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and the opposite parties who are the dealers can only forward the papers to the manufacturer for approval.  The averment that the 2^nd opposite party told the complainant that the matter is under process of the 1^st opposite party proves that the complainant is mistaking the 1^st opposite party as the manufacturer.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of these opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed. 

The 3^rd opposite party filed version denying the allegation made in the complaint.  As per exchange scheme on Hyundai i 10 cars, Rs. 15,000/- was payable for sale made during April 1^st 2009 to April 5^th 2009 and Rs. 10,000/- was payable for sale made from 6^th April 2009 to April 30^th 2009 and there was no NRI offer for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- during that period.  This opposite party is not responsible for the retail sale of the car and is answerable only to warranty obligations alone.  This opposite party deals with all its dealers on principal to principal basis and the concerned dealer is solely responsible for error/omission/misrepresentation at the time of retail sale.  It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled for the exchange bonus of Rs. 10,000/- because this opposite party did not receive any documents from the concerned dealer which is mandatory for granting exchange bonus claim amount.  The exchange claims were valid only if the claims, along with necessary documents were received by this opposite party within 1200 days from the date of the sale.  Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party. 

Complainant filed affidavit and Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6.

Issues raised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs as prayed for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he approached the 2^nd opposite party to buy a Hyundai i 10 car and as per deal he exchanged his Maruti Omni.  The 2^nd opposite party also had given a delivery note dated 19.04.2009.  As per deal the complainant being an NRI is eligible for an NRI offer of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- as exchange offer.  But no amount was paid to the complainant as per the offer.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version stating that all the offers are given by the manufacturer and as per the statements of the opposite parties complainant impleaded the manufacturer also.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 further stated that their duty is to forward all the papers to the manufacturer.  Moreover the opposite parties 1 & 2 only arranged a second hand dealer for buying the complainant’s old vehicle and delivery note was given only due to the insistence of the complainant.  The additional 3^rd opposite party in their version contended that there was no offer prevalent during that period and they did not offer either the exchange bonus or the NRI offer to the complainant.  As per Ext. P3 document it is seen that there exists an offer and it was stated in this document also.  Ext. P2 is the delivery note given by Hyundai Advantage Popular.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 stated in their version that they had forwarded all the papers to the manufacturer and the manufacturer has to give the offer.  So they have also been impleaded as additional 3^rd opposite party by the complainant.  They did not produce any document to show that there exists no NRI offer for an amount of Rs. 6,000/- prevail.  Meanwhile the opposite parties 1 & 2 admit that there is NRI and exchange offer.  On perusal of all the documents produced we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the additional 3^rd opposite party in not giving the offers.  Additional 3^rd opposite party failed to substantiate their contention by producing documents, affidavit or by oral evidence.  Hence we are of the view that the additional 3^rd opposite party who is the manufacturer is liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- as exchange offer and Rs. 6,000/- as NRI offer with 9% interest from the date of complaint and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs. 

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the additional 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- as exchange offer and Rs. 6,000/- as NRI offer with 9% interest from the date of complaint and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs within two months from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest till payment with costs. 

   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, this the 31^st day of January 2014.

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 122/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Radhakrishnan Unnithan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of order booking form issued by Hilton Hyundai.

          P2     - Delivery note dated 19.04.09 issued by Hyundai Advantage Popular

          P3     - Statement of price.

          P4     - Postal receipt

P5     - Acknowledgement card

P6     - Returned lawyer’s notice with acknowledgement.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb