Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/801

PANASONIC COCHIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

T J GOPINATH - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 801/15

 

JUDGMENT DATED:28.03.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

Panasonic Cochin,

M/s Ocean Electronics, 41/1019,                                               

Shalom, Ground Floor,                                                     : APPELLANT

Veekshanam Road, Cochin-18,

R/by Branch Manager.

 

(By Adv: Sri. B.A. Krishna Kumar)

 

            Vs.

1. T.J. Gopinath,

11F, JM Crescent, P.J. Antony Road,

Mamangalam, Kochi-682 024.

 

(By Adv: Sri.G.S. Kalkura)

 

2. QRS Retail Ltd.,                                                                  : RESPONDENTS

434/32/1838-B, NH Bye-pass,

Anjumana, Padivattom,

Ernakulam-682 024.

R/by Branch Manager.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.  P.Q. BARKATH  ALI,  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.60/15 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated July 31, 2015.

2.      Complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation and cost for the defective T.V he has purchased from the 2^nd opposite party of which first opposite party is the manufacturer.  The first opposite party, Panasonic, Cochin represented by its Branch Manager and 2^nd opposite party, QRS Retail Unit at Ernakulam remained absent before the Forum.  Therefore Forum accepted the evidence of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 and allowed the complaint.  Forum directed the first opposite party to replace the defective TV with a new one and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.2500/-.  First opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

3.      On February 25, 2016 when the appeal came up for hearing we have ordered that, taking into account the nature of the contentions raised by the parties we feel that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to contest the matter on merits and that appeal will be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.  Appellant was also permitted to deposit the amount before the Forum.

4.      Today when the case was called appellant produced memo to the effect that he has deposited the amount before the Forum.  Hence appeal is allowed.  The impugned order of the Forum allowing the complaint is set aside.  The matter is remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law.  Opposite parties are permitted to file their version before the Forum.  Appellant shall appear before the Forum on May 30, 2016.  On receipt of the records Forum shall issue notice to the complainant.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.