By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.15,203/- to the Complainant being the difference between the actual price of Rs.4,01,797/- and the price accepted by the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as exchange bonus, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for purchasing a car on 01.04.2016. The 1^st Opposite party explained to the Complainant that the Complainant being a ex-army person the total value of the car including insurance, road tax, extended warranty, RTO charge will be Rs.4,01,797/-. If exchange is there, there will be exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/- eligible to the Complainant. Believing it, the Complainant booked wagon-R car on 01.04.2016 with 1^st Opposite Party and paid Rs.2,57,000/- on different occasions. The Complainant exchanged his KL 12 G 1132 Alto car on 02.05.2016 with Opposite Party for a price of Rs.1,60,000/-. So the total amount paid to 1^st Opposite Party including cash payment of Rs.2,57,000/- and exchange value of Rs.1,60,000/- is Rs.4,17,000/-. So the 1^st Opposite Party accepted Rs.15,203/- more from the Complainant than the actual price. The complainant did not get Rs.20,000/- as exchange bonus as promised. The 1^st opposite party is now raising untenable reasons to deny the demand of the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to get the exchange bonus and the excess amount collected by the 1^st Opposite Party. The act of Opposite Parties are deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties appeared before the forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Parties, Opposite Parties contended that one Sajeevan, S/o. Sreedharan, Sreeparam House, Thekkumthara P.O had approached the 1^st Opposite Party for buying a Wagon R Car and booked on 01.04.2016. The Complainant also expressed his willingness to exchange his Aulto Car to the 1^st opposite party. The procedure for getting exchange bonus is also explained to the complainant. Subsequently the said Sajeevan required the 1^st Opposite Party to change the booking order in the name of Complainant. Since the Complainant is an ex-military person, the Complainant can avail tax benefit and other benefit if the vehicle purchased through the CSD, canteen service department. In order to avail the exchange bonus from the Opposite party, the Registration Certificate of Alto car was changed in the name of Complainant on 07.04.2016 by Sajeevan but insurance is not changed. Since theComplainant failed to change the insurance in his name within 10 days from the invoice date, the Maruthi Suzuki Company rejected the proposal for exchange bonus to the complainant. 1^st Opposite Party had no role in it. The old vehicle had purchased for an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- only and not for Rs.1,60,000/-. The total amount for the purchase of Wagon R Car is Rs.4,17,000/- which does not include exchange bonus. No excess amount is collected from the complainant by the Opposite Parties. All other allegations are denied by the Opposite Parties. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of

Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A11. Opposite Parties also filed proof affidavit and 1^st Opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 documents are marked. Exts.A1 is the copy of purchase Invoice, Ext.A2 is the copy of purchase agreement of Alto car, Ext.A3 is the copy of delivery receipt, Ext.A4 is the copy of booking cash receipt, Ext.A5 is the copy of balance payment receipt for Rs. 50,000/-, Ext.A6 is the copy of receipt for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ext.A7 is the copy of receipt for Rs.91,000/-, Ext.A8 is the copy of receipt for Rs.15,000/- Ext.A9 is the copy of One and the same certificate from Municipality, Ext. A10 is the copy of Registration Certificate, Ext.A11 is the copy of Insurance Certificate, Ext.B1 is the copy of vehicle tracking sheet, Ext.B2 is the copy of True value letter by 1^st Opposite party to 2^nd Opposite party. Ext.B3 is the copy of MSIL Bulletin regarding exchange bonus policy. Ext.B4 is the copy of letter send to 1^st Opposite party by 2^nd Opposite party. The case of Complainant is that the 1^st Opposite party accepted Rs.15,203/- as more amount towards the purchase price of vehicle. More over, the 1^st Opposite Party did not give Rs.20,000/- towards exchange value. As per Ext.A2 document, it is seen that the 1^st Opposite party had taken the old vehicle Alto Car from the Complainant for a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. But Opposite Party's case is that the 1^st Opposite party had taken the vehicle for Rs.1,45,000/- only. Ext.B2 document shows that the true value of old car is Rs.1,45,000/-. On perusal of these two documents, the Forum found that the true value department of Opposite Parties had taken the old car from the Complainant on 02.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as per Ext.A2 document. Later on 13.05.2016, the True value department gave a letter to the effect that they have taken the vehicle for Rs.1,45,000/- only as per Ext.B2 document. Ext.B2 document is prepared subsequent to Ext.A2 document ie purchase agreement, both Complainant and authorised signatory of Indus Motors Company Ltd had signed the agreement. So the Forum found that Ext.A2 document only will prevail and has got legal validity. Ext.A3 document is also a supportive document to Ext.A2. Ext.B3 document shows that there is a specific condition to produce insurance certificate in the name of old car owner within 10 days from the date of invoice of new car. The contention of Opposite parties is that earlier one Mr. Sajeevan booked the car and subsequently changed in the name of complainant. This Sajeevan transferred his old Alto Car in the name of Complainant. But insurance is not changed in the name of complainant. The Complainant not produced any document to show that the insurance of old Alto car is in his name at the time of purchasing new car. So when there is a specific condition regarding the eligibility of exchange bonus it should be followed. Here the Complainant failed to produce the insurance certificate within 10 days from the date of purchase. The contention of Complainant that the above fact is not informed to him in writing will not lie. The complainant paid Rs.2,57,000/- in cash as per Ext.A4 to Ext.A8 documents. The true value of old Alto car which the Complainant is entitled to get is Rs.1,60,000/- as per Exts.A2 and A3 documents. Then the total price received by the Opposite Parties from the complainant is Rs.4,17,000/-. But the Opposite Parties calculated the price of old car only Rs.1,45,000/-. So there is a difference of Rs.15,000/- which the complainant is entitled to get from the Opposite Parties. The Forum found that the opposite parties failed to give the full true value of the old car to the Complainant. This is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only to the complainant with 12% interest from 21.04.2016 till payment. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties jointly and severally shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of August 2017.

Date of Filing:08.03.2017.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1. Sajeevan. Pharmacist.

Witness for the Opposite Parties :

OPW1. Vipin Chand. Area Sales Manager, Indus Motors, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Tax/Vehicle Invoice. dt:21.04.2016.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:02.05.2015.

A3. Coy of Delivery Receipt.

A4. Copy of Cash Receipt. dt:01.04.2016.

A5. Copy of Cash Receipt. dt:02.04.2016.

A6. Copy of Cash Receipt. dt:25.04.2016.

A7. Copy of Cash Receipt. dt:03.05.2016.

A8. Copy of Cash Receipt. dt:10.05.2016.

A9. Copy of One and the Same Certificate. dt:31.05.2016.

A10. Certificate of Registration.

A11. Copy of Insurance Policy.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Vehicle Tracking Sheet.

B2. Copy of Letter .

B3. Copy of MSIL Bulletin.

B4. Copy of Letter.