Mr. Justice T.M. Hassan Pillai, President—The grievance of the appellant who is the first opposite party in OP 91/99 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram is that without any iota of evidence the Forum below held that the watch involved suffered from manufacturing defect and it is also contended by the appellant that there was no deficiency in service or default on the part of the appellant.

2. The appellant who has come up in appeal challenging the order passed by the Forum below, though appeared after receiving notice before the Forum below has not chosen to file written version or to contest the case.

3. The Forum below on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant (he has given evidence as P.W. 1 and also produced Ex. P 1 service clip issued by the appellant herein to the first respondent on 10.10.1998 and Ex. P 2 guarantee card) found that there was manufacturing defect for the watch which was purchased from the appellant by the first respondent on 2.12.1997 for a price of Rs. 1,100/-.

4. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the purchase of watch involved (watch was manufactured by the 2nd respondent) by the 1st respondent from the appellant on 2.12.