BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 10th day of January, 2014
First Appeal No.32/2012
K.Rajamanickam, S/o Kanu Chettiar,
No.35, Megathamman Koil Street,
Nadukuppam, Kottakuppam,
Villupuram District,Tamilnadu. …………. Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s Shamrock Systems,
Rep. by its authorized signatory
No.3/39, S.V. Patel Salai,
Puducherry.
2. M/s Hewlett-Packard India Sales P.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing director,
No.24, Salarpuria Aretia, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
3. M/s Redington (I) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.3-B, Villianur Road, Natesan Nagar,
Puducherry. ………. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2011, dated 02.02.2012)
Consumer Complaint No.22 of 2011
K.Rajamanickam, S/o Kanu Chettiar,
No.35, Megathamman Koil Street,
Nadukuppam, Kottakuppam,
Villupuram District,Tamilnadu. …………. Complainant
Vs.
1. M/s Shamrock Systems,
Rep. by its authorized signatory
No.3/39, S.V. Patel Salai,
Puducherry.
2. M/s Hewlett-Packard India Sales P.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing director,
No.24, Salarpuria Aretia, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
3. M/s Redington (I) Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.3-B, Villianur Road, Natesan Nagar,
Puducherry. ………. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru S.VIMAL,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
1st respondent – Exparte
M/s Law Solvers,
Puducherry - For 2nd respondent
Thiru S.Lokkeshvaran,
Advocate,Puducherry – For 3rd respondent.
O R D E R
(By Hon’ble Justice President)
This is an appeal by the complainant, whose complaint in C.C.No.22/2011 was dismissed for default on 02.02.2012 by the District Forum, Puducherry.
2. The first respondent/O.P.No.1 had remained absent and hence it was set exparte. On the appearance of the respondents/O.Ps 2 and 3 through their respective counsel, the appeal stands posted for arguments.
3. On 26.10.2012, it was represented by the counsel appearing for the respondents/O.P.s 2 and 3 that the matter is likely to be settled and hence the same was posted for report of settlement.
4. When the matter is called to-day, learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant has filed a memo stating that warranty card was given to the appellant/ complainant by the 2nd respondent/O.P.No.2 and the same could be recorded and the appeal be closed.. Further, appellant and his counsel also made an endorsement to that effect on the appeal memorandum. The said memo and the endorsement were recorded. In view of the said memo and endorsement, the appeal stands closed. No costs.
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2014
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(K.ELUMALAI)
MEMBER
