Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/569/2012

Babu Nainar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhakshnamoorthy & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Dhanalakshmi,

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

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

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 569 of 2012

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.20 of 2000 dated 18.07.2011 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Tiruvannamalai.

 

Friday, the 29^th day of April 2022

 

Mr.Babu Nainar

S/o. Chinnakulandhai Nainar

Milk Merchant

Nallavanpalayam Village & Post

Thiruvannamalai Taluk & Dist.                                                                                                     .. Appellant/ Complainant                                    

                                                                            

- Vs –

 

1. Dr. Dhakshnamoorthi

    No.111 Aiyankula Agraharam Street

    Thiruvannamalai.

 

2. Arunachala Nursing Home

   Rep. by its Proprietor

   No.9  Main Road

   Gandhi Nagar

   Thiruvannamalai Tk. & Dist.                                                                                          ..Respondents/ Opposite Parties                                                                      

 

   Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant                   :    None

 

  Counsel for 1^st Respondent/ 1^st Opposite Party    :    Abated

 

  Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Opposite Party :  M/s.J. Ramakrishnan

         

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 28.07.2011 made in C.C. No.20 of 2000 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvannamalai, against the dismissal of the complaint.

 

2.  When the matter came up before this Commission on 24.01.2022, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the papers have been returned to the appellant.  Hence, Registry was directed to issue notice to the Appellant, returnable by 07.04.2022.  It is found from the records that the said notice has been returned with the postal endorsement “deceased”. Hence, the appeal was adjourned to 29.04.2022, for passing appropriate orders. 

 

3.  Today, when the Appeal was taken up, there is no representation for the appellant.  Eventhough the postal endorsement reflects that the complainant is deceased, the same cannot be independently acted upon without any reliable sources in the form of Death Certificate.  However, considering the fact that the complaint is of the year 2000 and that no purpose could be served keeping the appeal pending any further, the appeal is dismissed for default.

 

4.  In the result, the Appeal is dismissed for default.

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                      R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022