Order No. 15 dt. 04/03/2020
The complainant filed this case against the o.ps that he purchased one refrigerator of LG made at a price of Rs.70,000/- from o.p. no.3 (seller). After purchasing of the refrigerator complainant found the same is defective and he informed the o.ps and requested o.ps for repair / replacement of the said refrigerator but the o.ps did not pay any heed, for which the complainant filed this case. It has also been contended by the complainant that the warranty provided in respect of the said refrigerator was of 10 years and within the 10 years defect arose, for which the complainant filed this case and praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of faulty compressor without any charge and prayed for compensation and litigation cost.
O.p. nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the materials allegations against them. It was stated that the complainant was given an offer that a depreciated value will be given back to him as he has used that refrigerator for a period of 67 months and he was also asked to purchase a new model of refrigerator whereby he will be provided hefty discount for providing new one. The complainant did not agree to such proposal and filed this case. In view of the said fact the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.p. no.3 being the seller of the said refrigerator filed w/v and stated that they have no role to play in this case. In case of the said refrigerator they are simply vendor of the said refrigerator in question thereby they cannot be held liable for any compensation and cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant purchased refrigerator of LG make from the o.ps?
- Whether during the warranty period refrigerator found defective?
- Whether there was any medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased one refrigerator of LG made at a price of Rs.70,000/- from o.p. no.3 (seller). After purchasing of the refrigerator complainant found the same is defective and he informed the o.ps and requested o.ps for repair / replacement of the said refrigerator but the o.ps did not pay any heed, for which the complainant filed this case. It has also been contended by the complainant that the warranty provided in respect of the said refrigerator was of 10 years and within the 10 years defect arose, for which the complainant filed this case and praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of faulty compressor without any charge and prayed for compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 argued that the complainant was given an offer that a depreciated value will be given back to him as he has used that refrigerator for a period of 67 months and he was also asked to purchase a new model of refrigerator whereby he will be provided hefty discount for providing new one. The complainant did not agree to such proposal and filed this case. In view of the said fact the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that being the seller of the said refrigerator they have no role to play in this case. In case of the said refrigerator they are simply vendor of the said refrigerator in question thereby they cannot be held liable for any compensation and cost.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a refrigerator in question at a price of Rs.70,000/- and the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 has also admitted that refrigerator in question had the warranty period for 10 years and the refrigerator was found defective, which has already been corroborated by the o.p. nos.1 and 2 that is after using the said refrigerator for 67 months the defects arose thereby o.p. no.1 and 2 agreed by giving an offer that a depreciated value will be given back to him as he has used that refrigerator for the period of 67 months and the complainant was also provided with a hefty discount, if he would opted for purchase a new one. In view of such evidence in record, we hold that the refrigerator in question became defective and the complainant ought to have accepted the proposal of o.p. nos. 1 and 2 by accepting the depreciation value of the refrigerator. Since the complainant was provided with the such offer before filing of this case, therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Since the o.p. no.3 is a seller, therefore, he cannot be held liable for any liability.
The complainant will be at liberty to accept the depreciation value of the refrigerator in question and he can also exercise option by purchasing with new model after getting hefty reduction of the value which had already been offered to the complainant. Accordingly, the case is disposed off.
Hence, it is ordered
That CC/67/2019 is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only against the o.p. nos. 1 and 2. The o.p. nos. 1 and 2 are jointly/severally directed to provide the hefty discount to the complainant, if he agrees to purchase the LG make new refrigerator and if he does not agree he should be provided with the amount after deducting the depreciated value of the refrigerator in question.
The case is dismissed against the o.p. no.3 without any cost.
