By : SRI SWADES RANJAN RAY, PRESIDENT
The gist of the complaint case - The complainant purchased Water Purifier of Kent Co. UF membrane from the shop of the OP at a price of Rs. 2700/-. After using of the water purifier for only two months the complainant saw in the water of the purifier one worm/insect and immediately the complainant returned the purifier to the OP for proper service. After service the OP returned the purifier to the complainant but the complainant noticed the problem was not solved and again worm/insect was seen floating in the purifier. Then the complainant again came to the shop of the OP and requested him to take return of the defective purifier and refund the money which the OP denied.
Under the above circumstances, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer for the reliefs as mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The OP, dealer of the water purifier contested the complaint by filing written version and admitted that he sold the water purifier which was quite O K at the time of its delivery to the complainant. So the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Apart from that the OP stated that he gave details of the customer care centre of the Kent purifier and also requested the complainant to contact with the service centre as mentioned in the warranty book. The OP is not responsible for the defect in the machine or to refund the money .
On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS.
- Whether the case is maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.
Both the issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Perused the complaint and the written version filed by the OP, the documents filed by both the parties and also considered the legal proposition advanced by the ld advocate for the parties at the time of argument.
It is the case of the complainant that after purchase of the water purifier he noticed worm or insect in the purified water and he immediately informed this to the OP and the OP also made necessary service of the machine and returned to the complainant. But according to complainant again insect was found in the purified water. The complainant claimed that the purifier was defective and so he is entitled to get return of the price of Rs. 2700/- from the OP. On the contrary it is the case of the OP that he is not responsible for taking return of the machine which he sold ; it is the manufacturer who is responsible for return the money or change the product.
In this regard I am of the view that the seller can not avoid his responsibility as he sold out the defective article to the consumer from his godown. So I am of the view that the seller OP cannot escape his liability. In view of the aforesaid discussion the complainant is entitled to get some relief against the OP.
Perused the terms of the warranty card, issued by the Kent Co. But in view of the fact that the purifier got defective after only two months of its purchase, the above terms of the warranty does not apply within this short period.
Op also filed questionnaires to which the complainant filed reply. In question No. 7 the complainant was asked whether he made contact with the company directly via e-mail or by telephone for this reason or to the seller directly - the complainant answered in the negative. The complainant asserted that the purifier got defective within two months from its purchase. He also solely depended on the seller for proper service of the same but the seller probably did not take any direct steps for repair of the purifier which he sold to the consumer at proper market price.
Considering all the above aspects, I am of the view that the OP Seller is liable to return the value of the defective water purifier to the complainant.
Both the issues are thus answered in the affirmative in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered,
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 250 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP Pattyayanek Steel House.
The OP is directed to replace the defective purifier of the same quality by taking back the defective one and or to return Rs. 2700/- along with Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and litigation cost within one month from the date of this order, I,d, the complainant will be at liberty to take recourse of execution.
However, the OP is at liberty to take up the matter with the manufacturer of the item ie KENT Co, UF membrane who issued the warranty for liquidation of his liability if any.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
