O R D E R R.Vijayakumar, Member. (2) The complaint is filed for the return of Rs.900/- which was illegally collected by the opposite parties and for compensation with interest and cost. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased one onida colour TV (Flat 53 cm, Model:21 OxTV/0xTS Oxygen Thunder & L No.4042762) from opposite parties on January 10,2007. The TV holds two years warranty from January 2007 to January 2009. The TV found defective on 03.04.08. The matter was informed to the first opposite party and the service technician of opposite party examined and detected that the tunner was defective. The technician repaired the TV and Rs.900/- as repairing charges was received from the complainant. The technician has given a cash memo of Adonis Electronics Pvt Ltd. The receipt of repairing charges within the warranty period is deficiency in service. As a result of the act of opposite party, the complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss. (3) The first opposite party filed version contenting allegations of the complainant. The complaint is illegal, improper and irregular. The manufacturer of ONIDA TV is proper party in these proceedings as the warranty clause which the manufacture accepted to the complaint in respect of ‘ ONIDA’ colour TV at the time of sale of the produced by the authorized dealer. The allegation that the defect was made known by the complaint to the opposite party is not correct. The authorized dealer has nothing to do with warranty contract as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the authorized dealer. Onida company had already appointed the authorized service providers. It is understood from reliable sources that the complainant had entrusted the above TV set with authorized service providers namely Adonis Electronics and the said service provides had rendered service to the complainant. As the warranty period expired and the manufacturer not bound by warranty clause, and as such the service providers might have collected charges from the complainant. There is absolutely no (4) deficiency in service from the part of first opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. The second and third opposite parties filed separate version. They have stated in their version that normally ONIDA TV is having 12 months service warranty which is clearly stated in the service manual. The complainant registered the complaint after 15 months from the date of purchase. The service centre provided proper service to the customer. Customer satisfied and paid Rs.900/-as spare cost and service charges receiving the bill. There is no deficiency in service from the part of second and third opposite parties. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exts.P1 to P3 marked. From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Heard both sides. (5) The points that would arise for consideration are : (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party? (2) Compensation and cost. Points (1) and (2) Admittedly the said model TV was purchased by the complainant on January10,2007 and it found defective on 03.04.08. The TV was repaired by third opposite party and Rs.900/- was received by the technician of third opposite party as spare cost and service charges are also admitted. The allegation of the complainant is that the third opposite party received Rs.900/- as repairing charges within the warranty period. The opposite parties argued that the TV is having only one year warranty and it is clearly stated in the service manual. The said complaint was reported and repaired after the service warranty period. (6) The pertinent point to be determined is that whether the opposite parties acted as per the warranty condition?. The period of warranty also is to be determined. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has direct contact only with first opposite party and the first opposite party is the person who had convinced the matter to the complainant. The date of expiry of warranty was filled by the first opposite party and as per the date of expiry warranty is assured for two years. The first opposite party has stated that there is no contract for warranty between first opposite party and the customer. Contract is between second opposite party and the complainant. As authorized dealer he does not have right to amend the clause unilaterally. It is argued by the learned counsel for first opposite party that the document is fabricated by the complainant for getting extension of warranty period. Warranty booklet issued by the manufacturer only and the first opposite party has only right to incorporate no. (7) and date of invoice and to affix stamp. The sign of DW1 was not in taken at the place in Ext.P2, where in correction was incorporated. Generally customer may have direct connection only with the authorized dealer at the time of purchase. The quality of products and to other details were explained and convinced by the authorized dealer to the customers. It is admitted by the first opposite party that he had right to incorporate no. and date of invoice and affix the rubber stamp. It is seen in page no.27 of Ext.P2 customers warranty card that the date of expiry of warranty is incorporated clearly as on 09.01.07. We have perused the document in detail we cannot say that the date of expiry of warranty was fabricated and there is no significance of any manipulation by the complainant. The columns to write customers name, address, name of town, dealer name and the space for signature seen unfilled. If the authorized dealer has no right to fill those columns who is the responsible person to fill those columns? (8) Exts P2 page 27 reveals the irresponsible and indifferent attitude of first opposite party in filling necessary columns related to warranty. The contention that the complainant had approached directly to the third opposite party without giving information to the first opposite party also is unbelievable since the authorized service centre was not mentioned in any of the documents issued by the first opposite party. The second and third opposite parties argued that the company and service centre is not responsible for any false commitments done by the dealer person. In our view the consumer has no direct contact with second and third opposite parties. The second opposite party has offered only one year warranty. The third opposite party has acted upon second opposite party’s warranty agreement as per the booklet issued by the second opposite party. Hence first opposite party is only liable for the false commitment. (9) For all that has been discussed above we are of the view that there is deficiency in service from the side of first opposite party. The points found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The first opposite party is directed to return Rs.900/- and to pay compensation Rs.1000/- along with cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Dated this the 23rd day of September 2010. K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/- R.Vijayakumar :Sd/- // Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing: 26.08.08. Date of Order: 23.09.2010. INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - John List of documents for complainant P1 - Bill P2 - Warranty card P3 - Bill dtd: 11.04.08. List of witness for opposite party DW1 - R.Muthukrishnan | 
