The burden of proof lies with the opponent to disprove the malfunctioning of the TV and failure to allow inspection, and the conduct of the respondent can be considered as evidence in the case.

Headnote:
Warranty - Consumer Protection - The court held that the complainant proved the malfunctioning of the TV and the opponent failed to prove that the technician was not allowed to inspect or repair the TV. The court also found the conduct of the respondent in refusing to produce the TV for inspection as evidence that the TV was working fine, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside of the District Forum's order.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent purchased a color TV which malfunctioned, leading to a complaint before the District Forum. The appellant contended that sincere attempts were made to attend to the complaint and that the warranty did not cover replacement or refund.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant proved the malfunctioning of the TV and the opponent failed to prove that the technician was not allowed to inspect or repair the TV. The conduct of the respondent in refusing to produce the TV for inspection was considered as evidence that the TV was working fine, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside of the District Forum's order.
Issues: Malfunctioning of the TV, refusal to allow inspection, warranty coverage, non-joinder of necessary parties
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the opponent to prove that the technician was not allowed to inspect or repair the TV, and the conduct of the respondent in refusing to produce the TV for inspection, indicating that the TV was working fine.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the District Forum was set aside, dismissing the complaint and requiring parties to bear their own costs.

ORDER

Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President — After hearing the Appellant's Counsel and perusing the records, the Commission (per Desai, J.) delivered the following:

2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 9.2.1990 passed by the District Forum, Belgaum in Complaint No. 3/1989 on its file. It arises in this way:

3. The Respondent herein had purchased Orson 20''colour TV for a sum of Rs. ll,850/- on 9.12.1988 from the Appellant. Some time after the purchase the colour TV started malfunctioning and it was exhibiting black and white picture, quality of which was poor. The Respondent brought the said facts to the notice of the Appellant who went to the house of the Respondent but could not rectify the defect. As the repeated requests of the Respondent did not yield any result, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Belgaum. The appellant registered the complaint by contending inter alia that he had sent his technician to the house of the Respondent but the Respondent did not allow his technician to inspect the TV and to repair it; that the technician asked the Respondent to take the TV to the show-room of the Appellant for attending to the defects but he did not take it; that he made sincere attempts to attend to the complaint of the Respondent and that there is no negligence on his part; that the warranty issued does not cover replacement or refund of the cost of the TV; that the Arson Electronics Ltd., is a necessary party to the proceeding and so the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that he is every ready and willing to attend to the complaint of the Respondent and to repair the TV. The complainant gave evidence and produce exhibits P1 to P9. DWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the Opponent and exhibit D1 was produced. On the said evidence, the District Forum held that the complainant has proved that the colour TV purchased by him was not functioning properly; that the opponent had failed to prove that the complainant did not allow his technician into his house to effect the repairs; that Arson Electronics, Bangalore is not a necessary party and directed the opponent to return Rs. 11,850/- towards the value of the TV to the complainant together with interest at six percent perannum from the date of complaint till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500/-. The District Forum also directed the complainant to produce the Colour TV before it on 22.2.1990 for delivery to the opponent on receipt of the amount. Hence this Appeal by the opponent against the said order.

4. The Respondent has remained absent after due service.

5. During the first hearing of the appeal, the Learned Advocate for the appellant filed an application IA No. 2 for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the TV in question and to repair it, if possible or else to state that the TV cannot be repaired. After hearing him, the Commission passed an order directing the appellant to take its Technician to Belgaum. The District Forum, Belgaum was directed to get the TV from the Respondent to its premises and to allow the technician to inspect it and to repair it and thereafter to report about the working condition of the TV. The District Forum has sent a report stating that the direction issued by it to the Respondent for producing the TV could not be served on the Respondent as he refused to accept it. The Learned Advocate for the appellant who had taken the letter containing the direction from the District Forum to the Respondent has filed his affidavit stating that the Respondent who was at Sambra Air Port, Belgaum on that day refused to take the notice as well as the Order on I. A. No. 2 passed by this Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by J.N.S. Prasad, Advocate in his Affidavit to that effect. It is also necessary to note that the Respondent has failed to produce the TV before the District Forum, Belgaum. Copies of the report of the President of the District Forum, Belgaum and the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document