By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the offered exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- with cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The 3rd opposite party approached the petitioner for the sale of the various model Maruthi cars for the opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party has shown the publication published by the 1st opposite party in Mathrubhoomi daily regarding the various offers on the purchase of various models of the Maruthi cars as monsoon Offer during the month of June, 2013 and introduced the petitioner, the 2nd opposite party. The petitioner have a 2005 model Maruthi wagon R car Vide registration No. KL 18 B5010. The opposite parties offered Rs.1,45,000/- as the price for the above said vehicle to the petitioner for the exchange with new car. The petitioner agreed to purchase a Brand New Maruthi Ritz car from the first opposite party for Rs.5,97,240/- and Rs.4,000/- for TP and Handling Charges. The 3rd opposite party entered an agreement with petitioner with the consent of the second opposite party and handed over the above said Wagon R Maruthi car for Rs.1,45,000/- to the second opposite party on 14.06.2014 and which is to adjust to the down payments of new Maruthi Ritz car by the 1st Opposite party. A loan for Rs.2,00,000/- is availed from Sundram Finance and the Sum of Rs.2,34,240/- paid to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party received the said amount on 14/06/2013 and delivered a new Maruthi Ritz car to the petitioner on 29/06/2013.
3. In addition, the opposite parties offered Rs.20,000/- as Consumer offer, Rs.2,000/- as dealer offer and Rs. 25,000/- as exchange bonus for the purchase of the new vehicle and with the exchange of the above said old vehicle. The petitioner also paid T.P Charge Rs.4,000/- and handling charges extra. The opposite parties adjusted Rs.20,000/-as offer Prize and Rs.2,000/- as dealers offer and promised to pay Rs.25,000/- as exchange bonus within one month after the delivery of the vehicle. The petitioner has every right to receive the Exchange bonus for an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are caused the unfair trade practice for attracting the consumers. The petitioner many times approached the opposite parties for receiving the above said exchange bonus after stipulated period directly and through telephone and lastly filed petition before the TLSC, S.Bathery Vide No.524/13 which is closed on 14.01.2014. Cause of action arose on 14.06.2013 when the Petitioner handed over the Maruthi Old Wagon R Car and adjusted down Payment to the New car, 29.06.2013 and thereafter when the opposite party delivered the new Ritz car to the petitioner at Sulthan Bathery which is the jurisdiction of this Honorable Forum. Hence prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of exchange bonus and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
4. Notice served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version. Opposite party No.3's notice returned stating that left without intimation. Hence his name called and set ex-parte on 03.07.2014.
5. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed version stating that these Opposite parties deny all the averments in the complaint, except those are expressly admitted hereunder. These Opposite Parties admit that the complainant purchased a new Maruthi Ritz car from these Opposite parties. But the 2005 modeI Maruthi Wagon R car having the registration No. KL.18. B. 5010 was not exchanged to these Opposite parties. These Opposite parties were unaware about the sale or any transaction which was made between the complainant and Opposite Party No.3. If Opposite Party No.3 had purchased the KL.18. B. 5010 Maruthi Wagon R car it purely a transaction between the complainant and opposite party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 was only a sales representative of Opposite Party No. 1. These respondents never authorized Opposite Party No. 3 to purchase any vehicle for them. If Opposite Party No.3 purchased the above said vehicle from the complainant it was only in his personal capacity. So there no deficiency in the service of these Opposite Parties. So these Opposite Parties are not liable to make any amount as compensation or exchange bonus.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Paper publication in Mathrubhumi daily on 21.06.2013 published by opposite party No.1 and 2. Where a total benefits for Wagon R is shows as Rs.43,000/- and also shown that the offer is only for June 2013. Ext.A2 is the vehicle sale agreement executed between complainant and opposite party No.3 wherein it is seen that the opposite party No.3 received the vehicle bearing No. KL 18 B 5010 for Rs.1,45,000/-, it is taken as down payment for taking the new vehicle and it is signed by complainant and opposite party No.3 and one witness named Nisam also signed in it. Ext.A3 is a quotation given by opposite party No.2 to the complainant which shows model Ritz VDI, Ex-showroom price Rs.5,97,240/-, Road Tax Rs.47,779/- and RTO Registration Charge Rs.100/-, Maruti Insurance Rs.17,565/-, Maruti extended warranty Rs.6,135/-, Handling Charge Rs.3,900/-, on road price Rs.6,72,719/-, and consumer offer Rs.20,000/- and a total of Rs.6,52,719/- and in it also written as “Exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/-”. Which shows that the opposite party No.2 also considered and acted as per the Ext.A1 exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/-. Ext.A4 is the Receipt issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant for receiving Rs.2,34,240/- on 24.06.2013. Ext.A5 is the Tax/vehicle invoice issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, which shows the complainant's name and opposite party No.3's name as sales executive dated 29.06.2013 and also shown the price as Rs.5,04,140/-, Tax as Rs.73,100/-, invoice amount Rs.5,77,240/-. Total ex-showroom price Rs.5,97,240/-. Ext.A6 is the Customer Docket of Indus Motor company private limited (opposite party No.1), wherein customer name is written as K. Sadanandan, car Model Ritz. Opposite party No.2 is examined as OPW1 and stated that the complainant purchased the disputed vehicle from opposite party and further stated that the opposite party No.3 was the Sales Executive of our company. In our company there is a scheme of purchasing the old vehicles and selling of new vehicle and an advertisement was given in the newspaper to that effect. Opposite party No.1 is our head office and all the schemes of opposite party No.1 also binding on us. Ext.A3 is given by our head officer and all the details about exchange, bonus is given in Ext.A3. The exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- is given only for the model above 2004 which is taken by the true value department but it is not stated in Ext.A3. The Ext.A2 is executed between the complainant and opposite party No.3, as per that document it can be seen that KL 18 B 1050 2005 model Wagon R is taken for Rs.1,45,000/- and it is considered as the down payment for the new vehicle and adding this amount with Ext.A4 document's amount the vehicle is delivered.
7. On considering the complaint, version, affidavits, depositions and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
8. Point No.1:- Opposite party No.1 and 2 admitted in their version and deposition that the opposite party No.3 was their Sales Executive and all the documents are also not disputed by the opposite parties. It is very clear from the deposition and document that the transaction is proved, exchange offer also proved and 3rd opposite party's role in opposite party No.1 and 2's firm is also proved. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that after advertising in the media and after transaction with the consumer turning around and not giving the offered exchange bonus is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties, opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to give the exchange bonus and cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only as exchange bonus and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only as cost and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. Thereafter the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April 2015.
Date of Filing:22.02.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sadanandan. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Yashin. Manager, Indus Motors, Bathery.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Paper Publication. Dt:21.06.2013.
A2. Vehicle Sale Agreement. Dt:14.06.2013.
A3. Quotation.
A4. Receipt. Dt:24.06.2013.
A5. Copy of Tax/Vehicle Invoice.
A6. Customer Docket.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
