Delay of 45 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner/complainant purchased a Television manufactured by respondent no.1 to respondent no.3.  According to the petitioner, it was giving trouble from the very beginning.  Petitioner approached respondent no.3 for rectification of defects but nothing was done.  It was alleged that the Television caught fire on 22.10.1995 due to

-2-

manufacturing defects.  Thus being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to either give a new Television after reducing the price of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.1,500/- as compensation and Rs.100/- as litigation costs or in the alternative, to pay Rs.20,000/-, Rs.1,500/- as compensation and Rs.100/-  as litigation costs with interest @ 18% p.a.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order by observing thus: 

“The manufacturers were not obliged to prove as to how the TV got damaged.  In other words, it may be observed that no onus lay upon the manufacturers to either disprove the complainant’s version or prove their defence case.  As the law is burden to prove manufacturing defect or a deficiency in service on the part of the manufactures or the dealer as the case may be, lies upon the complainant who files a complaint along with specific plea of there being a manufacturing defect in the item he has purchased.  Since in the case in hand the complainant has miserably failed to prove either the

-3-

manufacturing defector the deficiency in service on the part of the manufacturers or the dealer, he cannot derive any advantage out of his simple statement that it was on account of the manufacturing defect in the TV set that it caught fire.  We are, therefore, of the decisive opinion that the appellants cannot be put to any kind of blame in regard to the incident of fire in which the complainant’s TV set got badly damaged.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The burden to prove that the Television supplied to the petitioner was defective, was on the petitioner.  The Television set got damaged due to fire, which could not be because of any manufacturing defects.  Petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that there was a manufacturing defect.  Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the Television had a manufacturing defect was not proved.  Dismissed.