Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/14/2011

S. Abdul Hakeem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Leyland, Rep by its Managing Director & 2 ors - Opp.Party(s)

A. Mohammed Ismail

29 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                            Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No.14/2011

               DATED THIS THE 29^th  DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

S.Abdul Hakeem,

N.T.Lorry Service,

126, New Colony,

Thirumangalam,

Perambalur 621 220                                                                     ..complainant

                                                                       Vs

1.Ashok Leyland represented

by its Managing Director,

19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 600 001  

 

2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd,

Represented by its Divisional Manager,

Jerome Building, Fort Station Road,

Tiruchirapalli – 2

 

3. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd,

Represented by its Manager,

No.1, New Madras Highway,

Subramaniapuram,

Tiruchirapalli – 620 020                                                        ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant            : M/s A.Mohammed Ismail

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party     : M/s K.Moorthy

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party    : M/s Elveera Ravindran

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party     : M/s R.Parthasarathy

 

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

                                                  

                                                       Docket order

          No representation for complainant. opposite parties present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the complainant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, the also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

  Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                       R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                     PRESIDENT