Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/54/2020

N.Veeramani, S/o. Nallathambi, Mettu Street, Pathur & Post, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District. And 3 Others. - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                  BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH                  ::      PRESIDENT                       

                                      Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 54/2020

(Against the order in C.C. No. 13/2016 dt 14.2.2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Villupuram)

                                                          DATED THIS THE 27^TH  DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

N.Veeramani,

S/o Nallathambi,

Mettu Street,

Pathur & Post,

Ulundurpet Taluk,

Villupuram District                                                 ..Appellant/ Complainant

                                            Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

Indian Bank,

Ulundurpet Taluk,

Villupuram District

 

2. The Assistant Branch Manager,

Indian Bank,

Ulundurpet Taluk,

Villupuram District

 

3. The Zonal Manager,

Zonal Office,

Indian Bank,

Cuddalore

 

4. The General Manager,

Corporate Office,

Indian Bank,

254-260 Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapet,

Chennai 600 014                                                    ..Respondents/ Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the  Appellant/ Complainant       : M/s N.Veeramani (PIP)

Counsel for the Respondents/ Opposite parties  : M/s S.R.Sumathy

 

       This appeal is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :

                                                      Docket order

        No representation for appellant/Party in person and Respondent. This appeal is posted today for appearance of both and for arguments in list or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the appellant was not present, hence, passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, then also the appellant has not appeared. 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 cost.

     Sd/-                                                                                                        Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT