Hyundai, Dealer Liable For Withholding Exchange Bonus Despite Full Compliance: Uttarakhand State Commission
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Kumkum Rani (President) and C. M. Singh (Member), has held M/s B.M. Hyundai and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for withholding the exchange bonus. The Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission that the complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the...
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Kumkum Rani (President) and C. M. Singh (Member), has held M/s B.M. Hyundai and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for withholding the exchange bonus. The Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission that the complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Bhagwan Singh Negi, approached the showroom of M/s B.M. Hyundai (OP No. 2) for purchasing a Hyundai i10 car. He was assured by an authorized representative of the dealer that under an exchange scheme, he would receive Rs. 30,000 as the value of his old car, along with an additional exchange bonus of Rs. 25,000.
Relying on this assurance, the complainant booked the vehicle by paying Rs. 5,000 on 24-09-2013 and completed the purchase on 24-10-2013 by paying the remaining amount of Rs. 4,66,221 through cheque, while handing over his old car to the dealer. Subsequently, while the dealer paid Rs. 30,000 towards the value of the old car within ten days, the promised exchange bonus of Rs. 25,000 was withheld.
Aggrieved, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun, seeking payment of Rs. 25,000 towards the exchange bonus along with compensation of Rs. 50,000. The District Commission allowed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, both the Opposite Parties filed separate ap-peals before the State Commission.
Arguments by the Opposite Parties
M/s B.M. Hyundai (OP No. 2) contended that the complainant was not entitled to the exchange bonus due to non-compliance with the terms of the exchange scheme. The counsel argued that the complainant had not furnished the Registration Certificate and valid insurance, preventing the processing of the exchange claim.
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (OP No. 1) argued that the complainant failed to prove ownership of the old vehicle for the requisite period, pointed to alleged discrepancies in the vehicle documents, and asserted the absence of privity of contract, thereby denying any liability for the dealer's acts. It was further submitted that no defect in the vehicle was alleged and that the complaint was not maintainable.
Observations & Decision of the Commission
The State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission and held that the Opposite Parties were liable for deficiency in service for withholding the exchange bonus despite the complainant's full compliance with the terms of the scheme.
The Commission observed that the Opposite Parties failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate their allegation that the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents. On the contrary, the Registration Certificate and the valid insurance policy on record clearly established that the complainant was the registered owner of the old vehicle and that the insurance was valid at the time of purchase of the new car.
The Commission further noted that the dealer had obtained the original documents relating to the old car and that the material on record demonstrated due compliance with all conditions of the ex-change bonus scheme.
Holding that the withholding of the exchange bonus amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission dismissed both appeals and affirmed the District Commission's or-der directing the Opposite Parties, jointly or severally, to pay ₹25,000 towards the exchange bonus, ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, and ₹3,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission also clarified that in case of non-compliance within 30 days, the amount would carry simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. It further granted liberty to the dealer to recover the amount from the manufacturer.
Case Details
1. M/s B.M. Hyundai vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 353 of 2019
2. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 402 of 2019