Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/41/2012

K. ARUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITY UNION BANK LTD, CHAIRMAN - Opp.Party(s)

K. ARUL

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.41/2012

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

K. Arul,

Partner,

M/s. Technnova,

S/o. Mr. S. Kamaraj,

No.151, 6^th Cross,

Pallavan Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                                                                                                    .. Complainant.

 

-Versus-

 

1. City Union Bank Ltd.,

Represented by its Chairman,

Regd. Office at:

No.149, T.S.R. Big Street,

Kumbakonam – 612 001.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

City Union Bank Ltd.,

Chinmaya Nagar Branch,

Chennai – 600 093.

 

3. Bama Natarajan,

No.9, 4^th Cross Street,

Pallavan Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                                                                                         .. Opposite parties.

 

Complainant                                    : Party in person

1^st Opposite party                            : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party  : M/s. Mohammed Fayaz Ali

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party   : M/s. K.N. Nataraj

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.04.2022 for appearance of the complainant in person & 3^rd opposite party and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

Docket Order

 

The 2^nd opposite party present.  No representation for the complainant in person and 3^rd opposite party.   There was no representation for the complainant in person for the past several hearings.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant in person  and 3^rd opposite party and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for complainant in person.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 P.M. still there was no representation for the complainant in person.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant in person is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                  R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT