State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Deep Kamat, vs 1. Tina Costa, on 13 January, 2010
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia ... Presiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso ... Member Appeal no. 36/2009 Shri Deep Kamat, M/s Subhash Kamat & Co, Shop No.2 & 4, Sujay Apts, Panaji-Goa. Appellants (Original O.P. No.1) v/s 1. Tina Costa, b-1-1, Eden Woods, Taleigao, Goa. (Original Complainant) 2. Shri Nitin Chiplunkar (dec) Through heirs a) Mrs. Madhuri Nitin Chiplunkar, b) Miss Monica Nitin Chiplunkar, c) Miss Roma Nitin Chiplunkar, C/o NKC Marketing, Flower Queen, Ground Floor, Near Dhempe College, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Regional Manager (Service) M/s Philips India (Margao Service Centre), A-1, Vaishakh Apartments, 1st Floor, Opp. KTC Bus Stand, Near Rebello Hospital, Margao, Goa. Respondents (Original O.P. No.3) For the Appellant Shri A. Kantak, Advocate and Ms.R.A. Kantak, Advocate present at the time of order For the Respondent Shri M Nazareth, Advocate and Advocate N. Kouthankar present at the time of order. Dated: 13-01-2010 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. The appellant is the original first opposite party; he is aggrieved by the order dated 22-04-2009 passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum) North Goa in Consumer Dispute no: 106/2007 whereby he was directed to refund to the respondent/complainant an amount of Rs. 11555.56 and pay costs of Rs. 5000/-. The first respondent is the original complainant.
2. Heard Ld Adv Shri A. Kantak for the appellant and Ld Adv Shri M Nazareth for the first respondent. Counsel also filed written arguments. We called for and perused the records and proceedings of the trial forum and gave due consideration to the submissions of Ld Counsel.
3. The impugned order states the brief case of the complainant in the first three paragraphs; the fourth paragraph mentions that written statement was filed by the first opposite party followed by sentence that opposite parties were marked ex-parte on 18-12-2008 and then followed by a sentence (ostensibly giving reasons for the order that followed) which reads as follows:
Going through the evidence and the facts of the case that have been placed before us we are of the considered opinion that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence we pass the following
4. The order is devoid of any reasoning to enable us to fathom the application of mind by the District Forum. The impugned order would invariably cause prejudice to the opposite parties as they have a right to know the reasons why the order went against them.
5. In the light of the foregoing, we need not go into the other issues in the dispute for the moment.
6. The order dated 22-04-2009 impugned in this appeal is hereby set-aside. The matter stands remanded to the District Forum to re-hear the parties and dispose the complaint as per law. Being a long-pending case, the District Forum shall expedite disposal. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
7. Parties to appear before the District Forum, North Goa on 29-01-2010 at 10 AM.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member