DATE OF FILING : 12.1.2010.
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.16/2010 Between Complainant : 1. V.V. Sunny, Palakkattykunnel, Arakkulam P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.M. Sanu) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, Pulimoottil Automobiles, Hyundai Authorised Service Centre, Pala Road, Thodupuzha, Idukk i District. 2. The Manager, Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor World Pvt. Ltd., 6/567B,NH49, Perumattom, Moovttupuzha, Ernakulam District. 3. Joby, Agent – Popular Hyundai, Popular Motor World Pvt.Ltd., 6/567B,NH49, Perumattam, Moovttupuzha, Ernakulam District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT) The complainant is a practising advocate. He purchased a Hyundai Santro car from the 2nd opposite party as register No. KL-38-5996. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the 3rd opposite party, the authorised agent of the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and explained about the offer of the 2nd opposite party. As per the offer, the opposite parties will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as exchange offer, if the complainant purchases the new Santro car from their showroom after selling his old model car. If the complainant produces the sale agreement of the old car, the opposite party will pay the amount within one year. The cheque for the amount will send in the name of the complainant. Attracted by the offer the complainant sold out his old model Maruthi car and booked a Hyundai Santro car. The same was purchased on 16.1.2008 through the 3rd opposite party agent, from the 2nd opposite party. The copy of the sale letter and the copy of the R.C. Book of the old Maruthi car were given to the 2nd opposite party and they offered an amount of Rs.10,000/- within one year. The complainant sold out his old Maruthi car with a diminished rate because of this offer as per the promise of the 3rd opposite party. Several times the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the offer price and also contacted through telephone. But they denied the payment with flimsy reasons. On 5.10.2009, the complainant constrained to send a lawyer's notice to the opposite party demanding the payment within 7 days. It is a gross unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party, the denial of the offer which was advertised by the opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting the price offered by the opposite party with 18% interest and also for compensation.
2. The opposite party was absent and called exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to? 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant purchased a new Santro car manufactured by Hyundai company from the showroom of the 2nd opposite party. But he never received the exchange bonus as per the offer of the company. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the 3rd opposite party, authorised agent of the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle and described about the exchange offer of the company. The authorised agent assured that the company will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as exchange offer to the new purchaser of the Hyundai Santro car, if he produces the sale letter of the old vehicle to the company. The cheque will be given within one year of the purchase of the new vehicle. So the 3rd opposite party approached the complainant and received advance booking price of the vehicle from the complainant. The balance amount was paid as Demand Draft at Thodupuzha. The vehicle was delivered on 16.1.2008 through 3rd opposite party by the 2nd opposite party. The sale letter of the old Maruthi car of the complainant and copy of the R.C. Book were given to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of the R.C.Book of the old Maruthi car. Ext.P2 is the copy of the registration certificate of the old Maruthi car after requesting the change of the ownership. The retail invoice supplied by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the new vehicle is marked as Ext.P3. The copy of the R.C. Book of the new vehicle is marked as Ext.P4. Even after a long time the said offer was not received by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. So the complainant contacted the opposite party several times for getting the same. On 5th October, 2009, the complainant constrained to send lawyer's notice to the opposite party and the lawyer' notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement card were marked as Ext.P5 (series).
It is clear from the documents produced by the complainant that PW1 has purchased a new Hyundai Sntro car from the 2nd opposite party. As per PW1, there was an offer of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party after the purchase of one year of the vehicle, that was not received by the complainant. So he constrained to send lawyers notice to the opposite party and Ext.P5 (series) shows the same. After purchase of the vehicle, the opposite party never acted as per the offer provided by them, which is a gross unfair trade practice. No claim is sought against the 1st opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the amount offered by the 2nd opposite party after one year. Here the complainant purchased the vehicle on 16.1.2008. The sale letter of the old vehicle of the complainant was produced before the 2nd opposite party within that date. The 3rd opposite party is the authorised agent of the 2nd opposite party described about the offer of the 2nd opposite party. So we think that the 2nd opposite party is bound to pay the amount. Hence the petition allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest from 16.1.2009 to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and loss of the complainant because of the unfair trade practice of the opposite party and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2010.
Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/- SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of the Complainant : PW1 - V.V. Sunny On the side of the Opposite party : Nil
Exhibits : On the side of the Complainant : Ext.P1 - Copy of the R.C. Book of Maruthi Car. Ext.P2 - Copy of the registration certificate of Maruthi Car. Ext.P3 - The Retail Invoice No.H200701818 dated 16.1.2008, issued by the opposite party for Rs.3,43,173/- Ext.P4 - Copy of the R.C. Book of Hyundai Santro Car. Ext.P5(series) - Copy of the lawyer's notice, its postal receipt and postal acknowledgement card. On the side of the Opposite party : Nil
| | [HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member | | 
