BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY

Friday, the 23^rd day of February 2018

First Appeal No.18 / 2017

Amudhasurabhi Liquors Co-operative Super Market

 Unit of the Pondicherry Co-operative Wholesale

 Stores Ltd P-44, 301, M.G. Road, Muthialpet,

 Puducherry – 605 003 rep. by its Authorised Signatory. 

                                                …        Appellant  

                                                            Vs.

1.  R. Rajesh Kumar, son of P. Rajendiren,

    29, Lenin Nagar, Samipillai Thottam,

    Lawspet, Puducherry rep. by Human Rights and Consumer

    Protection Society through its Executive Secretary

    R. Muruganantham, No.107 Lenin Street,

   Kosapalayam, Puducherry – 605 013. 

2. Skol Breweries Ltd., rep. by its

    Authorised Signatory, BKN Ambaram Estate,

    648/L, 1^st Main, 1^st Stage, Indira Nagar,

    Bangalore – 560 038, Karnataka

…      Respondents

In C.C. 12 / 2012

R. Rajesh Kumar, son of P. Rajendiren,

29, Lenin Nagar, Samipillai Thottam,

Lawspet, Puducherry rep. by Human Rights and Consumer

Protection Society through its Executive Secretary

R. Muruganantham, No.107 Lenin Street,

Kosapalayam, Puducherry – 605 013. 

…      Complainant

Vs

1. Amudhasurabhi Liquors Co-operative Super Market

    Unit of the Pondicherry Co-operative Wholesale

    Stores Ltd P-44, 301, M.G. Road, Muthialpet,

    Puducherry – 605 003 rep. by its Authorised Signatory. 

2. Skol Breweries Ltd., rep. by its

    Authorised Signatory, BKN Ambaram Estate,

    648/L, 1^st Main, 1^st Stage, Indira Nagar,

    Bangalore – 560 038, Karnataka

…      Opposite parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN

PRESIDENT

Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Thiru B. Mohandoss,  Advocate                         

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

Thiru S. Vimal, Advocate for R1

Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate for R2

O  R  D  E  R

(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)

This appeal is filed by the Appellant / 1^st opposite party against the order passed in C.C.12/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.

          2. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 were duly served and they appeared through their Counsels.  Hence, the appeal was posted for arguments.   

          3. Today this appeal was called.  It is reported on behalf of the complainant / first respondent that the amount ordered by the District Forum has been settled by the second respondent / second OP.  This appeal has been filed by the first OP questioning the award passed by the District Forum.  Since the second OP has paid the entire amount ordered by the District Forum, the complainant no more can proceed against the first OP.  The Counsel appearing for the complainant also admitted  the  said fact.  Therefore, there need be no necessity to proceed with the matter further in the appeal preferred by the OP1.  It is needless to say that the complainant cannot proceed against the OP1 / Appellant.  Therefore, the appeal stands closed.

Dated this the 23^rd day of February 2018.

(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER