Mr. C.P. Suresh, Member—The unsuccessful opposite parties 1 and 2 in O.P. No. 626/1994 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, are the appellants before this Commission. The facts in brief are that an Optonica Colour T.V. manufactured by opposite parties 1 and 2 was purchased by the complainant on 15.11.1990 through the third opposite party, and it was burnt due to voltage flunctuations on 8.11.1992. The complainant gave it for repairs to the servicing centre of opposite parties 1 and 2 on 9.11.1992 and obtained a receipt, Ex. A-3. Repairs were estimated at Rs. 9,000/- and for replacement of the colour tube at Rs. 7,850/- which is more than the cost of T.V.

2. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite parties 1 and 2 widely advertised that the Optonica Colour T.V. is the product of a joint venture of Sharp Corporation, a Japanese concern, and is having in-built stabilizer system, and voltage fluctuation is no problem, and that no separate voltage stabilizer was required. Having seen the advertisement, the complainant approached the third opposite party who has also confirmed that no additional stabilizer is required. On believing his representation, th