Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—Desirable it is to pen down a common order inasmuch as the impugned order in each of these actions springs from a common order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) on the 5th December, 1997, in O.P. No. 75/1997 on its file.

2. The appellant in A.P. No. 35/1998 is the 3rd opposite party; the appellant in A.P. No. 75/1998 is the 2nd opposite party; the appellant in A.P. No. 77/1998 is the 1st opposite party and the appellant in A.P. No. 105/1998 is the complainant.

3. The complainant, it is said, is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

4. The 1st opposite party is a technician having the know-how of assemblage of air-conditioner by purchasing spare parts separately from various dealers.

5. The 2nd opposite party is a dealer dealing in many products inclusive of dealing Kirloskar compressor manufactured by the 3rd opposite party.

6. The foundational facts giving rise to the present actions may, in brevity, be stated in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration.

7. The complainant Advocate engaged the 1st opposite party technician to assemble an air-condit