Complainant/respondent purchased a set top box manufactured by the petitioner from respondent no.2.  According to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent no.2 had assured the complainant that the package would include three months subscription along with all free to air channels like DD National, DD Punjabi etc. which will continue to be telecast even if the subscription is not paid on due date after three months.  Rs.2,750/- were paid by the complainant on 31.12.2006.  The grievance of the complainant is that w.e.f. 04.3.2007, the connection was deactivated and free to air channels were stopped.  He filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation along with interest                     @ 9% p.a. and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

          Petitioner manufacturer filed the appeal before the State Commission alleging therein that the respondent no.2 was neither its authorized dealer nor was authorized to give any such discount/offer.  Many of the submissions on factum were also raised but the State Commission without going into any of the questions raised by the petitioner dismissed the appeal as the amount involved was a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/-.  It is specifically mentioned that the order is being passed without creating any precedent.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that there may be many such cases in which the petitioner may be held liable to pay the amount where the connection has been given by an unauthorized dealer/person; that the petitioner could not be held liable to pay the amount jointly and severally with the respondent no.2 as there was no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.2; that the fora below have erred in fastening the liability on the petitioner without recording any finding as to whether there was any relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no.2

We find substance in this submission.  The fora below should have recorded a finding as to whether respondent no.2 had been appointed as a dealer by the petitioner or that he had been authorized to give any such discount or offer.  We would certainly have interfered with the order, but for the fact that the cost of litigation would be much more than the amount awarded, revision petition is disposed of, without issuing notice to the respondent, with the modification that the direction regarding payment of interest is set aside.  We have modified the order without issuing notice to the respondent consciously in order to avoid the litigation cost but in case, the respondent is aggrieved by the modification made by us, then the respondent would be at liberty to move an application for recall of this order.