Heard learned counsel for both parties.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased  a whirlpool washing machine on payment of consideration of Rs.17,301/- from OP No.1 on 4.4.2011 The washing machine became defective after four months of purchase. The matter was reported to the OPs  whoreplaced the motor and other parts in the year 2012. The washing machine again became defective in 2014. The Area Service Engineer rectified the defect and thereafter, the machine was found defective continuously and in spite of reporting the matter, no step was taken. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version denying the allegations. It is admitted in the written version that the defect in washing machine was rectified during the warranty period. For further defect after the warranty period, the OPs are not responsible. They also denied about any defect in the washing machine. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed OP No. 6 to replace the washing machine or refund the price thereof failing which the entire cost will be refundable by OP No.6.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum failed to appreciate the materials on record with proper perspectives. According to him the defects have been removed within the warranty period but the second defect appeared after the warranty period for which the appellant – manufacturer is not liable. Learned District Forum ought to have considered such fact and law. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defect accrued in the first continued even till the end of the warranty period and thereby the manufacturer’s liability continued. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that the washing machine being manufactured by the appellant was purchased by the complainant in the year 2011. It is also admitted fact that the defect occurred in 2012 and necessary parts were replaced. It is also admitted fact that there is two years warranty for the washing machine. It is not in dispute that  for the second time the defect occurred in 2014. When the second time defect occurred, the question of continuity of first defect does not arise. As the defect for the second time arose after warranty period the liability of OP No. 6 is not sustainable in law. Learned District Forum has failed to appreciate all these facts and law.

10.    In view of above submissions, the impugned order, is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

11.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.