Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/339/2019

M/s.VGN Developers Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, No.15, Wallace Garden 2nd Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Mr.N.Mathivanan, S/o Mr.K.R.Narayanan, Flat No.3, IV Floor, Block L1, VGN MINERVA, No273, Dr.Gurus - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Harishankar

10 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU 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.339/2019

(Against the Order dt.06.09.2019 made in C.C. No.162/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))

DATED THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

 

M/s. VGN Developers Private Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.15, Wallace Garden, 2^nd Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                       .. Appellant / Opposite party.

-Versus-

 

1. Mr. N. Mathivanan,

S/o. Mr. K.R. Narayanan,

 

2. Mrs. M. Sivagami,

W/o. Mr. N. Mathivanan,

 

Both residing at:-

Flat No.3, IV Floor,

Block No.L1, “VGN MINERVA”,

No.273, Dr. Gurusamy Road,

Nolambur,

Mugappair West,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                   .. Respondents / Complainants.

 

 

 Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party      : M/s. K. Hari Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents / Complainants  : M/s. Pari Ramaiah

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 10.03.2022 for appearance of respondent and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of respondent and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Appellant was not present.  Hence, passed over and called again at 01.15 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant.  Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for default.   No order as to costs.

 

               

                   Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                         

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                            R.SUBBIAH                        

           MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT