Skip to main content

Tata Motors to pay Rs1.5 lakh to consumer after failing to provide booked car model

The Central Mumbai consumer dispute redressal forum on Monday directed the Tata Motors and one of its subsidiary firms, M/s Concorde Motors, to pay Rs1.5 lakh compensation to a Santa Cruz-based resident after the two failed to provide him car model that he booked.

The forum has directed the two to pay the amount with nine per cent interest rate from 2012. the forum has also directed them to pay an additional amount of Rs10,000 to the complainant towards his litigation cost.

On October 31, 2011, Pankaj Mathur had booked a car named Tata Indigo Manza New Aura. Mathur booked the car with special features like the rear demister, tilt adjustable power steering, ab power outlet in the rear cabin by paying a booking amount of Rs50,000. However, at the time of taking delivery on November 14, 2011, he realised that the special features were not installed in the car. The firms then issued an apology letter and offered him a discount of Rs5,000 for their mistake.

The firms, in their reply to the forum, claimed that at the time of booking, the said features were not available. Also, since they could not provide him with the additional features, they offered a discount to the complainant.

The forum, however, held the firms guilty of lapse of services and penalised them.

 Article referred: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Tata+Motors+told+to+pay+Rs1.5+lakh+to+consumer+after+failing+to+provide+booked+car+model&oq=Tata+Motors+told+to+pay+Rs1.5+lakh+to+consumer+after+failing+to+provide+booked+car+model&aqs=chrome..69i57.336922j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more