Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/140/2014

R. LAKSHMANAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION, THE REGIONAL OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

K. SRINIVASAN

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                            Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 140/2014

                            DATED THIS THE 27^th  DAY OF JULY 2022

 

1. Mr.R.Lakshmanan,

Son of T.K.Ramasamy,

 

2. Mrs.L.Chitra,

S/o R.Lakshmanan,              

 

3. Ms. L.Vijayalakshmi, (Minor/16 years)

D/o R.Lakshmanan

 

All are residing at No.6/2, Uma Nagar,

I.A.F Road, Selaiyur, Chennai – 600 073               ..Complainants

 

                                      Vs

 

1. The Regional Officer,

M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd,

 Regional office (South), 

No.1, Ranganathan Gardens,

11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040                      

 

2. M/s Padmavathy Bharath Gas Agency,

Rep.by its Proprietor,

No.183-A, Ranganathan Gardens,

11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040 

 

3. The Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Limited,

No.4,  Muthulinga Reddy street,

West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045                      ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainants                      : M/s K.Srinivasan

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                 : M/s O.S.Karthikeyan

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                : M/s S.Thankasivan

 

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party               : M/s Radha devi    

 

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

                                                   Docket order

          No representation for complainant. Opposite parties present. Ready. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for arguments in list or for dismissal.  when the matter was called at 11.00A.M, the complainant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.40 noon, then 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