CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                    Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No 206/09

                                                                                                                 Wednesday the 24^th day of August, 2011

 

Petitioner                                               : Tony Jacob,

                                                                Cheriyanoozhiyil House,

                                                                Makkapuzha PO, Ranni now

                                                                residing at Poovanthara House,

                                                                Chingavanam.

                                                               (Adv.,Kuruvilla Thomas)

           

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                      : The Manager,

                                                                M.G.F.Motors Ltd.,

                                                                Thampi’s Building, M.G.Road,

                                                                Ernakulam.

                                                             2) The Manager,

                                                                   MGF Motors Ltd.,

                                                                   Poyyanil Building,

                                                                   Opp.St.Thomas Higher Secondary

                                                                   School, Kozhencherry PO.

                                                             3) The Manager,

                                                                   MGF Motors Ltd., M.C.Road,

                                                                   Kottayam.

                                                                  (Adv. OP 1 to 3 K.Anilkumar Ambady)

                                                             4) M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd,

                                                                  Rep.by its Manager,

                                                                 Marketing & Sale Office, Madhura Road,

                                                                  New Delhi-110044.

                                                                 (Adv.Vimal Revi     

 

 

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows.    

            The complainant has given an order booking form to the second opposite party who is an agent of the third opposite party. The complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.2,000/- as cash and his old car bearing Reg.No.KL-03J873 for Rs.1,20,000/-, the exchange value agreed by the Senior Sales Officer of the second opposite party. Mr. Praveen Kumar and the fourth opposite party its manufacturer. At the time of booking, the total amount quoted for vehicle including registration, road tax and insurance was Rs.3,72,486/-. Besides that an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was also offered to the petitioner, soon after the sale of the old vehicle mentioned above was completed. On the basis of the above assurance given by the second opposite party, the complainant purchased the new car on 5/2/08 and is still using the same. The sale of the old car bearing Reg.No.KL-03 J873 entrusted to the second opposite party was completed on

 25-02/08. Even after the said sale, the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was not paid to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant demanded exchange bonus several times but on every occasion the second opposite party requested more time to settle the matter. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest, Rs.5000/- as damages for the mental agony, Rs.2000/- as litigation cost and court fee Rs.100/-.

            All the four opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

            The first, second and third opposite parties filed version together with the following main contentions.

i)                    This complaint not maintainable against the opposite parties 1 to 3 either in law or on facts of the case. This forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since no part of the cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum.

ii)                   The second opposite party has not accepted the old car from the complainant for Rs.1,20,000/- and the Senior Sales Officer Mr.Praveen Kumar C has not agreed the exchange value of the car as Rs.10,000/-

iii)                 Exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- is offered by the manufacturer and the second opposite party is only the channelising agent to facilitate payment of exchange bonus provided the conditions for payment are satisfied.

iv)                 Complainant was informed that he has to sell his old vehicle in 60 days of purchase of the new car and the RC book showing the particulars of the transferee has to be produced along with other documents for forwarding the same to the manufacturer for processing the exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has not entrusted the copy of registration certificate with the name of the transferee within 60 days time.

v)                  The complainant has not issued any lawyer’s notice as alleged. The allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is not correct.

Hence the opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

            The fourth opposite party filed version with the following main contentions

i)                    The exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- was payable subject to certain terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant was required to submit (1) new car invoice (ii)old car registration before transfer in same name and address(iii)old car registration certificate after transfer in name other than that of blood relation. But these were not complied by the complainant.

ii)                   The said documents were required to be submitted to the fourth opposite party within 120 days from the date of invoicing new car. Transfer of old car was to be effected within 30 days of invoicing of new car and not more than 105 days after new car purchase to be eligible for the exchange bonus scheme. The complainant failed to submit a complete set of documents

iii)                 The fourth opposite party operates with all its dealers on principal-to-principal basis. Error, omission or misrepresentation if any by the dealer concerned at the time of retail sail or servicing is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.

iv)                 The claim documents of the complainant claiming exchange bonus was received in the month of Dec.2008 which was much beyond the stipulated period of 120 days

The fourth opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties, Exhibits A1 to A9 and B1 to B2

            Heard the counsels for both sides and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a new Santro Xing GV Noble while car. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party offered an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The complainant produced the original order booking form and it is marked as Ext.A1. In Ext.A1, the old car exchange value for KL-03 J873 is recorded as Rs.1,20,000/- and it is signed by the Senior Sales Officer Praveen Kumar C. The opposite parties 1 to 3 averred that the second opposite party has not accepted the old car from the complainant for Rs.1,20,000/- or any other sum. If the old car of complainant was not accepted by the opposite parties, why such an entry was made in the Ext.A1, order booking form remain unexplained. The opposite parties have no case that the sign on the order booking form is not of their Senior Sales Officer, Mr. Praveen Kumar.C. Ext.A1, itself clearly proves that the old car bearing no.KL-03J 873 was accepted by the opposite parties no.1,2&3. The fourth opposite party produced the guidelines for exchange bonus guide lines and it is marked as Ext.B1. As per the terms and conditions of Ext.B1 the complainant had to transfer his old vehicle 30 days prior or till 105 days after new car purchase(invoice confirm date). As per Ext.A1 the new car was booked on

01-02-08 and as per Ext.A5, delivery receipt and gate pass the said car was delivered on 05/02/08. The complainant also produced the vehicle sale agreement original dtd 04/02/08 and it is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A2 reveals that the old car of the complainant was sold to Mr.Praveen Kumar Chellappan on 04/02/08 for Rs.1,20,000/-, the price which is quoted in the Ext.A1, order booking form. From the above mentioned discussions it is clear that the sale of the old car occurred before the delivery of the new vehicle. From these facts it can be seen that the complainant entrusted his old vehicle to the opposite parties 1,2&3 on 01/02/08 and the sale of the said vehicle happened on 04/02/08. Inspite of the acceptance and sale of the old vehicle, the first, second and third opposite parties failed to forward the necessary documents to the fourth opposite party. So in our view the deficiency in service on the part of first, second and third opposite parties caused this unnecessary litigation. If the documents were forwarded at the right time then the fourth opposite party would have given the exchange bonus to the complainant at the right time. In our opinion the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 are liable to compensate the monetory loss, mental agony, time loss and all other inconveniences suffered by the complainant. As the fourth opposite party, manufacturer disburses the exchange bonus to the customer, they have to give the said amount to the complainant as promised at the time of purchase of the new vehicle. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed.

            In the result, the complaint is ordered as follows.

            The fourth opposite party is ordered to pay the exchange bonus Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The first, second and third opposite parties will jointly and severally pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the above mentioned awarded sums will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Original order booking form

Ext.A2-Original vehicle sale agreement

Ext.A3-Original quotation

Ext.A3(a) Original proforma invoice

Ext..A4-Original Malayala Manorema daily containing the advertisement

Ext.A5-Original delivery receipt&gate pass

Ext.A6-Copy of certificate of registration of old car

Ext.A7-Copy of advocate’s notice

Ext.A8-Original postal receipt

Ext.A8(a)Original postal receipt

Ext.A9-Registration details

Ext.A10-Original retail invoice of new car

Ext.A11-Copy of certificate of registration of new car

Ext.B1-Guidelines of exchange bonus

Ext.B2-Dealership agreement copy