NRI Kidnap Case

Charge sheet against six accused filed in court
Police adds sections of robbery, wrongful confinement, forgery in NRI kidnap case
Chandigarh, June 27
The UT police today filed a charge sheet in the NRI kidnapping-for-ransom case, that was registered on April 10. The charge sheet was filed against six accused and the police added sections of robbery, wrongful confinement, receiving stolen property and forgery in the charge sheet after completing investigations.
The charge sheet was been filed in court under Sections 364-A, 341, 342, 397, 411, 468, 471, 473 and 474 of the IPC.
Navneet Singh Chatha, a Canada-based NRI, was kidnapped for a ransom of Rs 1 crore on April 10. A team of the crime branch of the UT police had rescued him following an extensive operation at Darua village in Kurukshetra.
The NRI's brother in Canada had received a ransom call, demanding Rs 1 crore. The police laid a trap and arrested the six accused who kidnapped the NRI.
The kidnappers fired shots at the police and the police had to open fire. The charge sheet was filed against Pradeep Malik, Nitin, Sanjeev Kumar, alias Soni, Sukhdev, Anil Kumar and Ajit Singh. While Pradeep fired shots at the police, Soni was the owner of the farmhouse where the victim was confined.
Of the six accused, Anil Kumar had three cases of murder registered against him and was a proclaimed offender with the Haryana Police. As per the charge sheet, the police had recovered Rs 12.5 lakh, 300 Canadian dollars, the Honda Accord car of the victim, a Swift Desire car robbed from a person in Panchkula and two mobile phones.
An investigating officer said the NRI was robbed of his purse and belongings at gunpoint in confinement, following which the police added sections of robbery with attempt-to-murder under Section 397 of the IPC.
The Swift Desire car used in the crime was stolen from Panchkula and an FIR in this regard had been registered there. The police had recovered a fake registration certificate of the car and added sections of forgery in the charge sheet.

the caseNavneet Singh Chatha was kidnapped for a ransom of Rs 1 crore on April 10. A police team rescued him following an extensive operation.

Tata Motors penalised Rs 50,000

Chandigarh, June 4
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while upholding the decision of the district forum-1 has increased the fine from Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000 on Tata Motors for its failure to rectify the fault in a newly purchased vehicle of a Mohali resident.
The respondents, Tata Motors, had gone in an appeal against the forum's order which had directed them to rectify all defects present in the Tata Indigo CS car by repairing/replacing the parts as per a report prepared by an engineering college within a month. In case, they are unable to rectify the defects as per the report, they may then refund the value of the vehicle paid by the complainant after deducting depreciation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of purchase till the date of the order. They were further directed to pay Rs 20,000 to the complainant as compensation along with Rs 5,000 as costs of litigation.
The state commission comprising president justice Sham Sunder and member Neena Sandhu directed the respondents to rectify the defects in the car/replace the defective parts thereof, as ordered by the district forum.
The respondents were also told to pay a sum of Rs 50,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment instead of Rs 20,000 as awarded by the district forum. The respondents will also have to pay Rs 10,000 instead of Rs 5,000 as costs of litigation. The direction given by the forum for deduction of depreciation value at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of purchase of the car till the impugned order passed by it was set aside.
The complainant, Chetan Gill, submitted that on their recommendation, he had bought a car for Rs 4,80,573 from Joshi Autos Zone Pvt. Ltd (opposite party number 3) with a warranty till December 12, 2009. It was further stated that the car started giving trouble from the very first month of purchase and, consequently, the same was taken to the workshop of the opposite parties, a number of times, for major repairs, including excessive engine noise and clutch problem on September 15, 2008, excessive noise caused due to faulty fan/alternator belt on December 23, 2008, and Camshaft drive belt along with belts broke down on April 7, 2009. The car was, thereafter, handed over
to him, as fully repaired but when it was taken for test drive, he realised that the problems still persisted. He alleged that the opposite parties sold a defective product, which was not working properly, and was continuously causing him mental pain and agony.
The council for the chairman and deputy general manager, Tata Motors Limited (opposite parties), respectively, stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant had not produced any expert opinion, or evidence, to prove the defects pointed out by him, in the same. It was further stated that the averments of the complainant stood contradicted, by the job cards, which did not mention any abnormal noise or defect in the vehicle. Whenever the complainant visited the workshop, the vehicle was fully repaired to his satisfaction, as per the conditions of warranty. It was further stated that the vehicle had already covered over 20,000 km, and the faults, if any, were because of excessive use as the vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle. The opposite party number 3 denied that the complainant was compelled to buy the vehicle and added that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle for service, his complaint was well attended to, as per the conditions of warranty. It was denied that the vehicle had broken down, due to any manufacturing defect, or that there was any engine noise, in the same.