Heard learned counsel for the parties. The fora below have decided that here is no dispute with regard to the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice played by the repsondents/Ops. It is for the complainant to prove that the TV purchased by him had any inherent manufacturing defects On this ground, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The attention of the fora below is invited towards Section 13 Clause (c) which runs as follows ; (c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum; It is thus clear that the District Forum is to find out whether there is any manufacturing defect in the TV or not. We, therefore, remand the case back to the District Forum with the directions to give opportunities to the parties to prove their case to this extent and the District Forum is armed with such powers to get the answer to this knotty question. It can also call the expert of its own. It can watch the TV itself and engineer of the opposite party. Parties are directed to appeal before the District Forum on 16.9.2013. District Forum is directed to decide the case expeditiously. In case, if any party does not appear on 16.9.2013, the District Forum will proceed against the party as per provision of law without waiting or sending further notice to them. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.