By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Facts of this case lie within a narrow compass. Complainant had purchased a 21 inch colour television for Rs.14,200/- from the shop of second opposite party on 20-8-02. First opposite party is the manufacturer of the product. After almost two months the television developed snags. Complainant approached second opposite party and informed about the defect. Second opposite party failed to turn upto rectify the defects. On repeated complaints the service personnel from first opposite party came and inspected the television. They were unable to understand the defect and rectify the same. On 13-01-03 complainant issued a written complaint to both opposite parties. On 15-01-03 the service personnel from first opposite party again came and inspected the television. The defect was not rectified. Complainant alleges that though the product became defective during the warranty period itself opposite parties failed to rectify the defect or replace the product. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. Both opposite parties have filed a joint version. The purchase of the television from second opposite party on 20-8-02 for Rs.14,200/- is admitted. The allegation that the television became defective and opposite parties failed to rectify the same is specifically denied. It is submitted that almost two months after the purchase of the alleged television complainant came to the shop of second opposite party and requested to have his television exchanged with the brand new model of Sharp television. That second opposite party explained to the complainant that such exchange was not possible after purchase. Then complainant stated that his television is not working properly. 2nd opposite party informed first opposite party and the service personnel of first opposite party examined the alleged television. They found that the television had no defect and it was working properly. According to opposite party complainant has put forward such allegations only to get a new T.V. In exchange of his old one. That opposite party has properly and promptly attended to the complaint of defect of television and there is no deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.C1 is the commission report. No documents or affidavit on the side of opposite parties.<br /> 4. The admitted fact of this case is that complainant purchased a 21 inch television from second opposite party for Rs.14,200/- on 20-8-02. first opposite party is the manufacturer of the television. It is the say of complainant that the television developed snags and did not function properly within two months of it's purchase. According to complainant the picture and digitals of the television attained a violet colour and in several places on the blue-black screen patches of red colour appeared. Although the service personnels from first opposite party examined the television they could not identify or rectify the defect. Opposite parties deny the allegation of defect and also fortifies that the allegation of defect is only a guise on the part of complainant to get his television exchanged with the new model Sharp television. The burden to prove any manufacturing defect of the product rests upon the complainant. On application made by complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect and report about the defect of television. Ext.C1 is the Commission report. Commissioner has inspected the subject matter after giving sufficient notice to both sides. The help of an expert Sri.Rajeev, Proprietor of M/s Hytech electronics who is a diploma holder in electronics was sought by the Commissioner. A work memo was filed by counsel for opposite party. In the work memo it was specifically requested to note whether there was appearance of violet colour upon the picture, whether patches of red colour appeared on the blue black screen, and whether violet and red colour spread upon the picture screen while the T.V. was switched on. In Ext.C1 report, commissioner states that at the time of inspection the T.V. was kept by complainant inside it's carton. When it was plugged on the T.V. did not work. The expert who assisted the Commissioner was ready to open the T.V. and check the reason why it was not working. This attempt was objected by counsel for opposite party who stated to the Commissioner that the allegation in the complaint was about colour deviation and not non-functioning of the T.V. That due to this objection further inspection to ascertain the defect was impossible for the Commissioner or the expert who assisted him. It is the duty of opposite parties to render all help in execution of the Commission. Opposite parties could also have offered the help of an expert from their side with consent of the Commissioner. No such steps were taken by opposite parties. Parties have a duty to come forward with the best available evidence to help the Forum reach a just conclusion. When they cause obstruction in tendering such evidence the party cannot take shelter under the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. For these reasons we have no hesitation to draw adverse inference against opposite parties and conclude that the television has manufacturing defects. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. Even though version was filed, opposite parties have not adduced any evidence inspite of sufficient opportunity. Complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in his favour. We find opposite parties guilty of committing unfair trade practice. First opposite party being the manufacturer is definitely liable to compensate the complainant. The privity of contract lies between complainant and the dealer/second opposite party. So the dealer cannot be absolved from the joint and several liability towards complainant. The dealer has his remedy to get reimbursement from the manufacturer in case he is called upon to satisfy the claim. We hold that complainant is entitled to refund of the purchase price along with costs of Rs.2,000/-.<br /> 5. In the result, we allow the complaint and order that both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,200/- (Rupees fourteen thousand and two hundred only) to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Second opposite party is at liberty to claim reimbursement from first opposite party if necessary.<br /> <br /> Dated this 25th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Cash bill for Rs.14,200/- dated, 20-8-02 issued by 2nd opposite<br /> party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Sharp television operation manual issued by 2nd opposite<br /> party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 13-01-03 by complainant to<br /> first opposite party.<br /> Ext.A4 : Computer print of the reply letter dated, 20-01-03 by first<br /> opposite party to the complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Court document marked : Ext.C1<br /> Ext.C1 : Commission report dated, 22-8-2003.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />