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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more