Heard learned counsel on behalf of appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Khordha, Bhubaneswar The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a washing machine bearing Model No.GWF 620FSDAC, from O.P on 09-02-2009 on payment of consideration of Rs. 12,799.99/- After purchase the complainant alleged that the machine becomes defective. He also informed the O.P. In the absence of complainant, one technician came and noticed that machine was defective. Despite several approaches, the O.P did not listen to rectify the defect hence, ence,Hthe complaint was filed by the complainant.
4. The O.P is set ex-parte.
5. After hearing the Complainant the Learned District Forum has passed the following orders:
“In the result, the complaint is allowed exparte against the O.P. The OP is hereby directed to refund the cost of the washing machine in question i.e Rs. 12,799.99 to the complainant with interest @ 9% per anjum, after receiving back the machine from the complainant. They are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. The entire amount be paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the OP in accordance with law.”
6. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is warranty period but within warranty period the machine was not defective. However they submitted that warranty does not cover all part for replacement. It is only to replace whole machine under certain circumstances as available in the terms and conditions. Thus, Learned District Forum have not considered the matter with proper perspectives. Learned District Forum without considering the material facts passed the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission, perused the DFR and impugned order. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased machine from O.P on payment of consideration. It also reveals from the Annexure -2 that warranty is available for 2 years comprehensive except plastic parts. Clause-7 of terms and conditions of warranty for washing machines is as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
“While Company would take all necessary steps to repair the Appliance supplied under the warranty and kept sufficient stock of the spare parts of the appliance with them, however, in certain cases, at the sole discretion of the company, the company may due to non- availability of spare parts of the appliance resulting into the Appliance not being repaired by the company, offer a replacement scheme to the purchasers of such Appliance which cannot be repaired due to non availability of spare parts of the Appliance, purchased under the warranty, the Company would offer a replacement of the appliance.”
8. It is very much clear to show that parts to be changed in the case of the non- functioning of the machine. But at the same time it was not allowed to take the replacement of machine if at all it is repairable. However, documents in the record only raise question whether the machine was repairable on 10-02-2009. Since there is no such material proved by the complainant, that it is irreparable, we are in view that there is no necessity to change the washing machine. Moreover, warranty does not allow to replace machine except the plastic parts of the machine.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, impugned order is liable to be set-aside, it is set-aside. Appeal stands allowed. No cost.
10. Statutory amount be refunded.
11. Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
