DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^th day of October  2012 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H, President

            : Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

            : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                   Date of Filing : 02/02/2012

CC No.28/2012

K.Sreeja Kumari,

W/o.Gopakumar,

2/147, Madhavi Nilayam,

R.K.Nagar,

Near N.S.S.Engineering College,

Akathethara (PO), Palakkad                           -        Complainant

(By Adv.R.Baluraj) 

Vs
 

1.The Manager,

   A.B.T.Maruti (A Division of A.B.T.Ltd.,)

   27/1158E, Mini Bye Pass Road,

   Near Bhuvaneswari Hotel,

   Puthiyara (PO), Kozhikkode – 673 004.

(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)

2.The Manager,

   A.B.T.Maruti Car Booking Office,

   (A Division of A.B.T. Ltd.)

   Mani’s Arcade,  10/350 (11),

   Priyadharsini Road,

   Near Aroma Theater,

   Palakkad – 678 001

3.The Manager,

    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

    (Head Office)

    Nelson Mandela Road,

    Vasant Kunj,

    New Delhi – 110 070                                   -        Opposite parties

  (By Party in Person)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER       

The complainant was the owner of a 1996 model Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.KL-09-R-9564 and was in good condition. The representatives of 2^nd opposite party has approached the complainant and requested to purchase a new Maruti Alto car from them and submitted the company is providing attractive schemes for the newly purchase of vehicle. Upon the promise and belief made by the opposite parties the complainant has purchased a new Maruti Alto car from the 1^st opposite party by exchanging  her 1996 model Maruti 800 car. The authorized agent of 2^nd opposite party have fixed  Rs.40,000/- towards the value of Maruti 800 car of the complainant. The total value of the new vehicle purchased by the complainant was Rs.3,26,265/-. The value of the old car was adjusted towards the booking amount. The opposite parties have also made a further offer of Rs.15,000/- towards exchange offer. Advertisements were also made by the opposite parties in the daily            newspaper. The complainant has booked the new car on 23/07/11 through 2^nd opposite party, the authorized office of 1^st opposite party. The opposite parties have delivered the new Maruti Alto car to the complainant and registered before the RTO  on 03/09/11.

After delivery of the new Maruti Alto car, the complainant has  demanded the exchange offer of Rs.15,000/- as offered by the opposite parties at the time of booking and purchase of the car. But the representatives of the opposite parties were evading the same to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant sent a registered lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on 8/12/11. The opposite parties not made any reply or paid the exchange offer amount till this date. The intention of the opposite parties is not to execute the offer amount to the complainant as promised by them at the time of booking the new car. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1.    Pay Rs.15,000/- as offered at the time of booking new car and

2.    Pay Rs.25,000/- as the compensation for mental agony and

3.    Pay the cost of the proceedings.

          1^st and 3^rd opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. 1^st opposite party stated that complainant’s husband approached them for purchasing a car. They were using a Maruti 800 vehicle and wanted to upgrade their vehicle to a Maruti Alto. All the available schemes were explained to them. The vehicle belonging to the complainant was sold to a outside source and the proceeds thereon were given towards the cost of the new vehicle. A new vehicle was also delivered to the complainant. The sale between the complainant and opposite parties was not an exchange sale as interpreted by the complainant. In an exchange  sale, the vehicle of the customer is taken by the opposite parties and they sell at their used car outlet. Here the price offered by opposite parties had not been acceptable for the complainant’s husband and the vehicle had sold to an outside source by the complainant’s husband. Hence the sum of Rs.15,000/- offered as exchange bonus was not applicable. Hence the 1^st opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint.

          The 3^rd opposite party stated that there is no transaction of sale and purchase of goods between the complainant and them. The 3^rd opposite party being manufacturer  does not earmark  or sell vehicle so manufactured to any individual customer directly. They sells the vehicle to its authorized dealers under the Dealership Agreement against C form under the Central Sales Tax Act. The relationship between opposite parties 1/ 2 and 3 are same based on Principal to Principal and is governed by the Dealership Agreement as enumerated in clause C of recitals of agreement.

          The 3^rd opposite party denied the alleged attractive schemes for the newly purchased vehicle. The 3^rd opposite party is responsible only for warranty obligations as per warranty policy to be discharged through its dealers. The complainant did not point out any such defect in the vehicle. 3^rd opposite party or its staff is not involved in the alleged sale agreement / exchange bonus executed between the complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2. The alleged entire sale transaction has taken place were the complainant and opposite parties 1 or 2 and the 3^rd opposite party is not privity of the alleged sale contract. It is denied that 3^rd opposite party has delivered the vehicle to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the  part of 3^rd opposite party. Hence 3^rd opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

2^nd opposite party was absent and set exparte.

Complainant filed affidavit and  documents. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 no affidavit filed and no document produced. 1^st opposite party filed affidavit. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are;

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost?

 Issue No.1 & 2 

We perused relevant documents on record. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized car manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki cars in India. The complainant stated that the representatives of 2^nd opposite party has approached to purchase a new Maruti Alto Car and submitted that the company is providing attractive schemes for the newly purchased vehicle. The  2^nd opposite party was exparte. So 2^nd opposite party  has not filed version and affidavit. Opposite party 1 & 3 filed version. But they had not produced documentary  evidence to prove that the offer was not given to the complainant.

According to the complainant  the opposite parties have delivered the car to the complainant  and registered before the RTO on 3/9/11. As per Ext.A1 the 1^st opposite party issued the order  booking dated 23/7/2011 mentioned that  Exchange “yes”. In version 1^st opposite party stated that the price offered  by them had not been acceptable  for the complainant’s husband  and the vehicle had hence been sold to an outside source. As per Ext.A1 the sale of Alto car to the complainant was exchange. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. Also the complainant has not examined  by the opposite parties. The complainant stated that the exchange offer of Rs.15,000/- advertisements were made by the opposite  parties in the Daily Newspaper. No documentary  evidence produced by the complainant to show the exchange offer. But the opposite parties not denied the exchange offer. 3^rd opposite party stated that they had not approached the complainant to purchase the vehicle. But 3^rd opposite party is the authorized car manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki. No documentary evidence produced by 3^rd opposite party to prove that they had not offered to pay any exchange amount. According to 1^st opposite party the vehicle belonging to the complainant was sold to an outside source. As per Ext.A1 the vehicle of the complainant was exchange. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties to show that any  exchange offer existing during the period of time car purchased by the complainant.  

Ext.A2 and A3 are the lawyer notices sent to 1^st and 2 opposite parties. The complainant stated that no reply sent by the opposite parties. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on  the part  of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant  an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only)  as the exchange offer, Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only)  as compensation for mental agony  and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.           

Pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of October  2012.

    Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

     Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

      Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member 

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of the Order Booking / commitment list dated 23/7/11 issued by

             1^st opposite party

Ext.A2 series– True copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment

                     card dated 8/12/11 issued by complainant’s advocate to 1^st

                     opposite party

Ext.A3 series – True copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment

                      card dated 8/12/11 issued by complainant’s advocate to 2^nd 

                      opposite party

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.