The central legal point established in the judgment is the proof of a manufacturing defect in the product and the failure of the manufacturer to fulfill its promise, leading to a deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an appeal against the order dated 13.9.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called the District Forum).

2. Brief facts stated in the complaint are that a coloured Videocon television set was purchased by appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) on 3.6.1999 from Vishal Electronics, Railway Road, Hoshiarpur, respondent-O.P. No. 1 (hereinafter called the O.P. No. 1) for Rs. 13,500/- on instalments. The Managing Director, Videocon, Mittal Courts, 17th Floor, C-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai, O.P., No. 2 before the District Forum (hereinafter called the O.P. No. 2) was the manufacturer of the television. The television was financed by M/s. Balraj Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. , Hoshiarpur. As such, the bill was in the name of Balraj Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. The complainant was the beneficiary. It is then stated in the complaint that there was guarantee of one year for any technical defect in the television set. On 16.5.2000, at 8.00 p.m. when the television was on, all of a sudden it got fired and then in no time it was got damaged. On 17.5.2000 the complainant had lodged a complaint with O.P. No. 1. On 20.5.2000, the Mechanic of the opposite party had visited the house of the complainant and checked up the television and found that the fire to the television had occurred because of manufacturing defect. O.P. has assured the complainant to replace the television set. Thereafter he approached the O.Ps. so many times for the replacement of the television set but they refused. Thus this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the O.Ps. by the District Forum. Shri B.L. Sharma, Accounts Officers, appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 on 19.7.2000. None turned up on behalf of the O.P. No. 1 on that day despite service. The case was adjourned to 3.8.2000 for written reply. On that day none appeared for the O.Ps. and as such no reply was filed. An order to proceed ex parte against the O.Ps. was passed and the case was adjourned to 10.8.2000. On 10.8.2000, Mr. B.L. Sharma appeared for O.P. No. 2. Complainant filed his affidavit. Copy was supplied to Mr. B.L. Sharma. The case was adjourned to 17.8.2000 for the evidence of the O.Ps. No evidence was produced on the adjourned date. Case was adjourned to 31.8.2000 for evidence of the O.Ps. On that date also no evidence was produced. Same was the position on 7.9.2000 and as such, the case was adjourned for arguments for 13.9.2000. On 13.9.2000 this order was passed in absence of the O.Ps.

4. After hearing the arguments addressed by the Counsel for the complainant the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have also gone through the record as well as the order of the District Forum.

6. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is not proved if there was any manfufacturing defect in the television set. The reasoning given by the District Forum, that nothing has been mentioned in the complaint as well as in the affidavit as to what could be manufacturing defect stands rebutted from the record.

7. In our view, the order of the District Forum is illegal and also against the factual position on the record. It has been specifically mentioned in Para No. 4 of the complaint that on 20.5.2000, the Mechanic of the O.P. had visited the house of the complainant and had checked the television thoroughly. The Mechanic found that the television set got fire because of manufacturing defect and he further found that the television set was out of repair and the O.P. had assured the complainant that the television set shall be replaced at the earliest as it was under guarantee. It is also stated by the complainant in this para that the photographs of the damaged television set were also taken by the O.P. This statement made by the complainant in his complaint is supported by an affidavit fil