The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to fulfill the necessary prerequisites, such as providing evidence and certificates, to avail benefits under corporate discount schemes.

ORDER

Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member—Appellant-Sant's Hyundai has filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 513 of 2014. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 13,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the opposite party No. 1-Sant's Hyundai is the dealer of opposite party No. 2-Hyundai Motor India. The complainant purchased a Hyundai i10 car from the opposite party No. 1 on 09.06.2013 for a sum of Rs. 5,07,250/- having two years warranty. At the time of purchase of this vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant about the corporate discount scheme, in which the company shall pay Rs. 3,000/- through cheque within 06 months from the date of purchase, but the complainant did not receive the same till date. The complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1 and demanded Rs. 3,000/-, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Later on, the complainant also sent a complaint to the opposite party No. 2-company on 12.06.2014, but opposite party No. 2 did not answer the same and did not pay the money. The act of the opposite parties comes under deficiency in service and unfair trade practise. By the act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony and also suffered economic loss. The complainant as well as the dealer of the company reside in District Haridwar, therefore, the District Forum, Haridwar has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The complainant prayed for Rs. 3,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, as corporate discount money and also for Rs. 4.00 lacs as compensation in regard to the mental agony and harassment.

3. The opposite party No. 1-Sant's Hyundai has filed written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and only maintainable in the Civil Court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. At the time of purchase of vehicle, the complainant identified him as the employee of BHEL and answering opposite party had apprised the complainant about the corporate discount scheme, in which the complainant has to submit evidence regarding corporate employee and also to submit a certificate from his company. There after opposite party No. 2 had to pay Rs. 3,000/- as corporate discount to the complainant. In the written statement, the answering opposite party has stated that corporate discount scheme is the scheme of opposite party No. 2, which was launched to give benefit to the corporate employees. In the scheme, corporate employee has to provide a certificate from his employer and after getting this certificate from the complainant, the answering opposite party will send it to the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 will pay Rs. 3,000/- as corporate discount to the purchaser of the car. The complainant did not provide any certificate from his employer to the answering opposite party and, therefore, the answering opposite party did not send any document to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 did not pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. The complainant on 21.06.2013, at the time of booking of the car, had written BHEL in the form No. 1173, but he did not submit any evidence and certificate to the answering opposite party. The complainant did not prove by any evidence that he is related to any corporate, therefore, it was not possible for the opposite party No. 2 to provide discount through answering opposite party. The answering opposite party asked the complainant to provide the certificate, but he did not provide the same, ra