Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/18/2020

Kishore Sambasivam, 6-C, Vivekanada Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Manager, FIIT JEE LIMITED, FIITJEE House, 29 A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya vihar, New Delhi 110 01 - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Hari and Guru Asso

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                     Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 18/2020

(Against the order in C.C. No. 99/2019  dated 25.9.2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai(South)

                                                        DATED THIS THE 31^st  DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Kishore Sambasivam,

6-C, Vivekanandar street,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai 600 106                                                                  ..Appellant/complainant

                                              Vs

1. The Manager,

FIITJEE Limited,

FIITJEE House,

29-A, kalu sarai,

Sarvapriya vihar,

(Near Hauz Khas Bus Terminal)

New Delhi – 110 016   

 

2. The Manager,

FIITJEE Limited,

No.51, Fiitjee Towers,

Dr.Ramasamy Salai,

KK Nagar,

Chennai 600 078                                                                      ..Respondents/opp. parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant        : M/s Hari & Guru Associates

Respondents 1 and 2                                : Notice served

 

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

                                                

                                                                                         Order

 

          No representation for appellant. Notice served to Respondents 1 and 2. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for arguments in list or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00A.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