Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/14/2015

Authorised signatory, Panasonic Brand Shop - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. Vinjiram - Opp.Party(s)

K. JAyaraman and N. Indhumathi

15 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

                   BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                                           Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

F.A. No.14/2015

(Against the order in C.C. No.14/2013, dated:11.04.2014 on the file of

D.C.D.R.F., Dharmapurai at Krishnagiri)

                                                          DATED THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

1. Authorised Signatory,

    Panasonic Brand Shop,

     RDS & Co,

     44/2 Dickenson Rd,

     Bangalore.        

 

2. The Authorised Signatory,

    M/s. Panasonic India ( Pvt ) Ltd.,

    SPIC Building Anex, 6^th Floor,

    No.88 Mount Road,

    Guindy, Chennai – 600032.

 

3. The Authorised Signatory,

    Manufacturer – Panasonic AVO Networks

    India Co Ltd.,

    C-52, Phase- II, Noida – 201305 ( UP ).

 

4. The Authorised Signatory,

    Manufacturer – Panasonic AVO Networks India Co. Ltd.,

    C-52, Phase – II,

    Nioda – 201 305 (UP).

 

  .                                                                                          .. Appellants  / Opposite parties.

 

-Versus-

1. Mr. N.Vinjiram,

    No.36, Sasi Nagar,

    1^st Cross,

    Hosur – TK – 635109.                                        … 1^st Respondent / Complainant

 

 

2. The Service Engineer,

    Kayal Communication,

    ( Authorised BPL service centre)

    3 – C, 1^st Floor, Near LIC Office,

    Kandasamy Vathiyar Street,

    Dharmapuri – 636701.                                     ...2^nd Respondent / 2^nd opposite party.

 

Counsel for the Appellants 1 to 4 : M/s. K . Jayaraman

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent    : PP effected

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent  : Sd called absent

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 15.11.2021 for hearing. Due to non – representation of the Appellant, this Commission made the following order:-                                                                                                 

Docket order

 

            No representation for Appellant. Today this matter is posted for appearance of Appellant and for filing written arguments of Appellant and for arguments in list. When this matter was called at 11.00 a.m, there was no representation for Appellant, since the matter was passed over and again called at 1.00 noon, the appellant was again not present, the appeal is dismissed for default.  No cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT