CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/126
1. Padmini Sudheesh
2. Rajani P.S.
3. Sasidharan M.S
1. M. Madhavan
1. Shrikumar Nambanath
1. K. Arunkumar Kaimal
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant came across with a general offer by the respondent to the effect that Bajaj Platinum, for a price of Rs.3999/-. It was a festive offer to celebrate the 5,00,000 vehicles of Bajaj. Following the general offer in Mathrubhumi daily dated 12th January 2007, the complainant went over to the shop in Patturaikkal junction. The mechanical staff there showed him the vehicle of the choice of the complainant and directed to the respondent while the complainant was with the respondent, the mechanical staff called out the Chasis No. and the Engine No. of the vehicle of the choice of the complainant. The sales staff was drawing out the cash bill, meanwhile the complainant offered Rs.5000/ to the respondent. Meanwhile bill section head informed the net payable to Rs.40,000/- plus or minus. Then the complainant took out the copy of the News paper dated 12/1/07. Then the respondent told the offer in the news paper. It is a gimmick to pass on the vehicle to innocent and gullible buyers and means to attract buyers to the shop. The respondent is not prepared to sell the vehicle for the price notified. The complainant sent a notice to the respondent and received it but with no positive reply. Hence this complaint.
2.The Counter filed by the respondent states that :
The complainant misunderstood the notification that the respondent is delivering Bajaj Platina for Rs.3999/-. It is false that the complainant came to the respondent’s show room at Patturaikkal. There is no mechanical staff in the respondent show room and so it is false that the said person called out the chasis No. and Engine No. The complainant is unable to say the actual price of the vehicle as he had not gone there. In the advertisement it is clearly written that conditions apply. The respondent had delivered the said vehicle to those had given the amount written in the notification plus the conditions agreed to pay the balance amount. The complainant did not approach to the respondent show room and did not demand to deliver the said vehicle by showing the notification. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are:
1) Is there any unfair trade practice ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence : The complainant had produced three documents and marked as Exhibits P1 to P3. The respondent produced 2 documents and marked as Exhibits R1 and R2.
5. Points : The Exhibit P1 is the Mathrubhumi daily containing the offer stated by the complainant. According to him as per the advertisement he had approached the respondent to purchase the vehicle for Rs.3999/- but it was not delivered by stating it was not the actual price. We have perused the Exhibit P1 daily and can be seen that there is writing of ‘Just pay Rs.3999/-‘ and a picture of Motor cycle is shown. Some other conditions are also seen. According to the complainant he thought that the price of the vehicle was Rs.3999/- because in the advertisement it is written as “just pay Rs.3999/-“. But along with the wordings there is also given a star sign which can be noticed at the time of reading the word ‘just pay Rs.3999/-‘. When such a sign is given usually means some more conditions are remaining. The size of letters are normally same and there is nothing to misunderstand and no unfair trade practice is seen to be committed.
6. In the result complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 19th day of March 2009.