UT forum issues warrants to secure appearance of Tata motors in case
- Mamata Banerjee govt saving those involved in Saradha scam: Rahul Gandhi
- BJP rubbishes Geelani's claim, calls separatist leader's 'Modi emissary talk' as 'false and mischievous'
- Gadkari says there's casteism in Bihar DNA then retracts by saying he meant 'political' DNA
- At least Modi-led govt wonât be remote-controlled, says Anna
- IPL 7 Live Cricket Score, RCB vs MI: RCB recover after early strikes by MI
In a case of failure to comply with the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, warrant of arrest to secure their presence before the forum were issued on Thursday against Tata Motors Limited, through its Chairman Ratan N Tata, who has been named as one of the respondents.
The others, against whom the orders have been issued, include S Sree Raman, General Manager at Customer Service at Tata Motors Limited and Managing Director of Joshi Auto Zone Private Limited, Deepak Joshi.
The warrant pertains to a complaint by Chetan Gill, a resident of Mohali, which was allowed by the consumer commission in a case of repairs on a Tata car, where the defects were not rectified as per his satisfaction. After an application of compliance was filed by the complainant, the consumer forum opined that the opposite parties had failed to comply with order, and were therefore, liable to be punished.
As per the direction of the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum today, by a bench including President P L Ahuja, warrant of arrest were issued against the parties for their presence before the forum for passing an order on the quantum of sentence on November 26.
As per the complaint, Gill alleged that the Tata Indigo, purchased by him, from Joshi Auto Zone in Chandigarh, had started giving problems in the first month of purchase and on lodging a complaint, company officials ha d examined the car but failed to rectify the problem. According to the earlier order by the commission passed in April 2012, the respondents were directed to rectify the defects, upon failure in which they were to refund the entire cost of the car. Further, they were directed to compensate Gill with Rs 50,000.
The forum, observed that the car defects had not been rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and instead of the refund, Gill was sent a compensation cheque of Rs 60,000, in which case Gill applied for compliance.