The complainant, Ravinder Pal, said he wanted to buy an Indigo from the defence canteen in Bathinda and had made an advance payment of Rs 8,000 to Hind Motors in July 2008. He later paid Rs 3,88,459 for the car.

The complainant averred that he was driving down to Ludhiana with his family in the car when it developed a technical snag on the way. When they took the car to an authorised agent of Tata Motors the next day, all four nuts of the front wheel were found to be loose.

The complainant alleged that the vehicle was delivered to him without conducting a pre-delivery inspection, which indicated negligence and deficiency on part of Hind Motors.

In its reply, Hind Motors said the complainant had not placed on record any bills pertaining to the sale as the vehicle involved in the complaint was purchased from the defence canteen.

The forum ruled: “It shows that there was no proper pre-delivery inspection of the car in question. In such circumstances, there is a grave deficiency on part of the dealer.”

Forum directs HP to replace defective laptop

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Hewlett Packard and Alfa Netcom in Sector 35 to replace a defective laptop or refund Rs 44,775 to the complainant.

The complainant, Sanjay Saxena, had purchased a Compaq Presario 4313TU laptop from Alfa Netcom for Rs 44,775 and accessories worth Rs 2,000. He stated that the laptop did not function properly — the speakers were inaudible and the system used to hang frequently — and certain components had to be replaced within 15 days of purchase.

The service centre advised Saxena to take the laptop to the Delhi office which, on September 13, 2007, carried out a few repairs for which the complainant was charged Rs 5,000. The problems, however, did not end and Saxena moved the consumer forum.

In its reply, Alfa Netcom said after-sales service was carried out by the service provider of the manufacturer, which was RT Outsourcing Services Limited in Sector 34, which has not been made party to the complaint. The firm also denied all allegations of the complainant, stating that there was no deficiency in service on its part.