DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2008

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.38/2007

Dr.Vasudevan,

S/o.Anandan Nair,

Panchami(H),

Bheemanadu(P.O),

Mannarkkad,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Sreenivasan)

Vs

1. The Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam,

Ernakulam, Kochi.

(By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil and

Rajesh Cherian Karippaparambil)

2. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd

Kay Kay Yem Complex,

Shoranur Road,

Nurani, Palakkad.

(By Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil and

Rajesh Cherian Karippaparambil)

3. Maruti Udyog Ltd.,

Palam Gurgaon Road,

Gurgaon 122015 - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

On 12.09.2005, the opposite parties 1 and 2 conducted an exhibition cum sales of Maruthi cars at Kodathipadi, Mannarkkad. At that time complainant approached opposite parties and expressed his willingness to purchase a new Maruthi car. Opposite parties offer was 'my next bike is a Maruthi' and opposite parties offered Rs.4,000/- cash bonus to the purchasers of new Maruthi car, if they are transferring their motorcycle in connection with

the purchase of Maruthi car. Mr.Bipin.V, Sales Officer of the opposite parties had made business dealing with complainant. On 13.9.05 Bipin came to the house of complainant and explained about the special offer of Rs.4,000/-. Believing the cash offer of opposite parties complainant purchased new Maruthi 800 car from the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 were given home delivery of Maruthi car on 30.9.2005 to the complainant. The complainant transferred the ownership of his motor cycle No.KL9F 1671 Hero Honda within the time prescribed and sent the details to the opposite parties 1 & 2 with the copy of R.C book of Motorcycle. But the opposite parties 1 and 2 had not taken any care to issue Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. So many times complainant had made contact with opposite parties by telephone and their sales officer Bipin. But the complainant has not received any favourable reply from the opposite parties. Sales Officer, Bipin and 2^nd opposite party told that it is the duty of the 1^st opposite party to provide cash offer of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Then complainant directly approached 1^st opposite party many times requesting to provide Rs.4,000/- cash offer, but 1^st opposite party never turned up for that. At last on 10.3.06 complainant sent registered lawyer notice to opposite parties 1 & 2 and they had not send any reply to the notices. After getting notices opposite parties 1 and 2 have made telephone calls to complainant requesting some more time to issue Rs.4,000/- to complainant. But so far the opposite parties not paid Rs.4,000/- cash offer to the complainant. On 12.2.2007 complainant directly approached 2^nd opposite party requesting to give Rs.4,000/- and at that time 2^nd opposite party made phone call to 1^st opposite party and told to the complainant that it is not possible to give Rs.4,000/- to complainant. The act of opposite parties 1 and 2 are highly illegal and unfair trade practice. Only because of their offer complainant purchased Maruthi car from opposite parties. Complainant suffered much mental agony and suffering because of the illegal act of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence complainant is entitled to get Rs.4,000/- cash offer from the opposite parties jointly and severally with 12% interest and he is also entitled to get Rs.6,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other losses caused to him.

After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for their appearance. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed versions stating the following contentions.

The first contention is the complaint is not maintainable before the forum. The forum is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The vehicle was booked and delivery of the vehicle was effected at Ernakulam. Hence no part of the cause of

action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum. According to the complainant the opposite parties have given an offer that 'my next bike is a Maruthi car' and advertised Rs.4,000/- cash bonus is not fully correct. This offer was made by M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd manufacturer of the car. The opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that the offer was made by M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd to facilitate the two wheeler owners to graduate to four wheeler. And this scheme of M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd was subject to the condition that the customer should sell his two wheeler and buy a Maruti vehicle. And further the customer should produce copy of customer invoice of new vehicle, copy of transfer document of two wheeler and R.C copy of two wheeler and new vehicle in the same customer name. These documents have to be furnished in the stipulated period of one month to M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd to avail the cash bonus of Rs.4,000/- from Maruti Udyog Ltd. In this case the complainant has failed to comply the aforesaid conditions whereby he is disentitled to claim Rs.4,000/- from M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd. Further the opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that the complaint is not maintainable since M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd is not made as a party to this complaint. The alleged loss is due to the negligence of the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled for or any compensation from the opposite parties.

On 14.6.2007 complainant filed an I.A.No.97/07 to implead the manufacturer as supplementary 3^rd opposite party. I.A allowed. Supplementary opposite party 3 filed stating the following contentions.

The complainant bought the vehicle in question from opposite parties 1 and 2 under a contract for sale of vehicle and paid the consideration only to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite party 3 was neither privy to the contract for sale between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 nor the opposite party 3 received any sale consideration in respect of vehicle in question from the complainant. Further stated that the complainant has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the supplementary opposite party No.3 as defined under Section 2(i)(o) and (r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. Opposite party 3 was not privy to the contract for sale of vehicle in question, which was entered into between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant admittedly bought the vehicle in question from the opposite parties 1 and 2 in a contract for sale of goods simplicitor. The complainant never had any interaction with this 3^rd opposite party with regard to sale of vehicle at any time. The complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground. The supplementary 3^rd opposite party stated that the opposite party 1 and 2 has been selling the

Maruti products under the dealership agreement to their customer independently under its own invoice and sale certificate and against their own sale tax registration number with other local levies. The sale transaction on the terms and conditions is settled between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 and was concluded on delivery of vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or damages from the 3^rd opposite party. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Complainant as well as 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed proof affidavits along with documents. Ext.A1 to A5 are marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A3 and A5 (series) marked with objection. Matter heard.

Issues to be decided are;

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

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

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

Issue No.1:

We perused relevant documents on record. Ext.A1 is the notice of advertisement regarding exhibition conducted at Fathima Complex, Court Junction, Mannarkkad, Palakkad on 10^th and 11^th day of September, 2005. As per the complaint, on 12.9.05 the opposite parties 1 and 2 conducted an exhibition cum sales of Maruthi cars at Kodathipadi, Mannarkkad. Opposite parties has not disputed this fact. Part of the cause of action aroused within the jurisdiction of this forum. Hence the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2 & 3:

The main contention of the opposite parties is that, the complainant has not fulfilled the condition for availing the cash bonus of Rs.4,000/-. As per the proof affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2, complainant has to fulfill the following conditions. Customer should sell his two wheeler and buy a maruti vehicle. Further customer should produce copy of customer invoice of new vehicle, copy of transfer document of two wheeler and R.C copy of two wheeler and R.C copy of new vehicle in the same customer name. These documents have to be furnished within the stipulated period of one month to M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd to avail the cash bonus of Rs.4,000/- from Maruti Udyog Ltd.

To prove the statement of opposite parties, no document stipulating these conditions is produced before the forum. It can be seen from the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 that the complainant has in fact fulfilled the above conditions. It is evident from Ext.A2 that the Hero Honda motor cycle was transferred on 3.10.2005 i.e. within the stipulated time. Ext.A3 go on to show that Maruthi car was registered in the name of complainant itself. The complainant states that all the documents were submitted before the opposite parties within the stipulated period. Opposite party has not produced any evidence to show that the complainant has not submitted the same within one month. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant. The act of the opposite parties in not disbursing the cash bonus even after complying all formalities is certainly deficiency of service on their part.

It can be seen from the Ext.A1, notice of advertisement that all the opposite parties together conducted the exhibition. Further supplementary 3^rd opposite party has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention that they are not liable to pay the cash bonus. Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. In the result complaint allowed.

Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) being the offer and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of November, 2008

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member