Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/299/2015

Balasubramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Vijaya Lakshmi - Opp.Party(s)

S. Vanchinathan

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

F. A. No.299/2015

 

(Against the Order dt.30.06.2015 made in C.C. No.42/2011 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chengalpattu)

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

M/s. Balasubramanian Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director

Mr. Balasubramanian,

No.43-C, 4^th Main Road,

Nanganallur,

Chennai – 600 061.                                                         .. Appellant / 1^st Opposite party.

-Versus-

1. Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi, M.D.,

No.3/2, Sabapathy Street,

Ullagaram,

Chengalpattu District,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                  .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.

 

2. M/s. India Man Aircon,

Old No.46, New No.104,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.                                              .. 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Appellant / 1^st Opposite party            : M/s. S. Vanchinathan

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / Complainant           : M/s. Poovanalingam

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party : M/s. B. Rajkumar Ashok Singh

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 30.03.2022 for appearance of both 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 both 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 12.00 Noon 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/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT