By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
The complaint filed against the opposite party for the rejection of the declared benefit in the purchase of TATA Manza Car.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant was approached by Assistant Sales Manager of the opposite party with the benefit of scheme in the exchange of Ford Ikon Flair Car used by the complainant and the offers considerable in the purchase of Tata Manza Car. The value estimated by the opposite party for the used car of the complainant was Rs.2,65,000/-, additional offers were of such that the consumer offer of Rs.10,000/- exchange bonus of Rs.16,000/-. The other favors offered by the opposite party were tinted glass, spreading mats and flap for the
new car. The purchase value of the Indigo Manza Aura Abs car was Rs.6,69,658/- and it was ordered on 31.10.2010. On the same day complainant handed over the used car to the agent of the opposite party. The total investments of the complainant for the purchase of the new car is Rs.7,05,113/- and the new car was delivered to the complainant on 14.01.2011 with the invoice dated 05.01.2011. The opposite party reduced the price of old car to Rs.2,50,000/-. The other offer were not given instead Rs.25,000/- was collected in excess from the complainant.
3. The complainant informed his grievances several times but the opposite party turned his back to the request . Apart from these there were different offers for the purchase of the vehicle in Malayala Manorama daily on 06.01.2011. The unimplementation of the scheme is a deficiency in service. The opposite party withdrew from the earlier offers, the offers as such tinted glass, spreading mats amounting Rs.5,000/- were also not offered. The notification by the opposite party to trap the customer with different offers were also not putt in to practice in the dealing. The complainant is to be compensated for the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. There may be an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.15,000/- the amount reduced from the agreed price of the old car, Rs.10,000/- as the customer offer, Rs.5,000/- towards other offers including tinted glass and spreading mats. The complainant also to be compensated Rs.10,000/- along with cost.
4. The opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The booking of the manza car at the branch office of the opposite party at Kalpetta on 31.11.2010 is admitted. It was an exchange sale. The Ford Ikon Car 2008 Model used by the complainant was purchased by the opposite party. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 14.01.2011 and the invoice was on 05.01.2011.
The attractive brand Manza car sold to the complainant for reduced price consequent to the attractive offers. The used car of the complainant sold to the opposite party on 31.12.2010 pricing Rs.2,65,000/-. There was no offer from the opposite party to provide car with tinted glass, spreading mats or other benefits and that were not offered by the opposite party. The purchase of the used car and sale condition of the Manza car were well disclosed to the complainant. The offers published in daily Malayala Manorama dated 06.01.2011 is not considerable in the case of the complainant. Since the purchase of the car belongs to the scheme of December 2010. The vehicle was sold to the complainant and delivery affected accepting all the terms and conditions. The value of the used car was not reduced. The allegation of the complainant that there was a reduction of Rs.10,000/- and other offers are only resulted by a second thought of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
5. The points in consideration are:-
1. Is there any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in the sale of the vehicle
to the complainant?
2. Relief and Cost.
6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the opposite party. Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B5 are the documents. The oral testimony of the complainant and opposite party are also considered.
7. The dispute in issue is in respect of the offer alleged to be made by the opposite party in the sale of the car. Ext.A1 is the order booking form, clause 7 of this document details the customer
free offer were in the exchange value of Ford Ikon 1.3 2008 model is Rs.2,65,000/-. The complainant booked the car Indigo Manza Aura ABS, the vehicle was booked on 31.12.2010, and the delivery note that is Ext.A2 also fixes the value of the used car Rs.2,65,000/-. The details invoice dated 05.01.2011 is the Ext.A4, the exchange value recorded in this document is Rs. 2,50.000/-. The opposite party retracted from the actual price agreed at the time of booking the vehicle that is Rs.2,65,000/-. Ext.A5 is the advertisements dated 06.01.2011 the customer offer for Manza Tata Car is Rs.10,000/-. In addition to that an exchange offer of Rs.15,000/- also specified in this advertisements. The total offer according to this advertisements is Rs.25,000/-. The invoice of the car is dated 05.01.2011 and the delivery of the car was on 14.01.2011. The opposite party ascertain that the booking of the vehicle was on 31.12.2010 but the delivery affected only on 14.01.2011. The opposite party is examined as OPW1 according to him the used car of the complainant purchased for a sum of Rs.2,65,000/-. The opposite party agreed that the value of the used car was reduced but the reason for the reduction of the value agreed is not brought out in evidence. The new car was delivered to the complainant at his house and it was on 14.01.2011. The advertisements in daily by opposite party does not exclude the customers from offered benefits who book the vehicle in the month December 2010 and further it does not specify that the benefits are offered to those who book the particular brand of vehicle in January alone. The complainant was delivered vehicle only on 14.01.2011 which was invoiced on 05.01.2011. The customer offer liable to be given to the complainant also the difference in the offered and agreed value of the used car is also to be compensated to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) including the reduced price of the used car and customer offer to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards cost and compensation.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31st October 2011.
Date of filing:09.05.2011.
