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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more