Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/162/2019

S.Jayaraman , Age 71, S/o Shanmuga Nadar ,6/125 ,3rd Street, P.M.Samy Colony, R.S.Puram ,Kovai-641002. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Proprietor , Gokulam Bus Service ,28 ,Krishnasamy Nagar ,Ramanadhapuram , Kovai 641 005. And A - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

26 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE 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.162 / 2019

(Against the order in C.C.Sr. No.41/2019, dated:12.06.2019 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Coimbatore)

                         DATED THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

 

 

S. Jayaraman,

S/o. Mr. Shanmuga Nadar,

No.6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.M. Samy Street,

R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002.                                                                                                           .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

1. The Proprietor,

Gokulam Bus Service,

No.2, Krishnasamy Nagar,

Ramanathapuram,

Coimbatore – 641 045.

 

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office (South),

Peelamedupudur,

Coimbatore – 641 004.                                                                                                .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Appellant / Complainant           : Party in person

Counsel for 1^st Respondent     : M/s. S. Kesavan

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent    : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar                            :

          This appeal coming up before us on 26.11.2021 for appearance of appellant in person 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 Appellant in person and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  When the matter was called at 11.05 A.M., the Appellant was not present hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.35 P.M., then also, the Appellant has not appeared. Hence keeping the appeal  pending is of no use as parties are 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