Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/36/2020

1.The Manager, M/s.PNB Housing Finance limited, 3rd Floor, Sudarsan Building, No.14, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. And Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.R.Amutha, P3, Lotus Colony, Nandanam,, Chennai 600 035. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Mothilal & Goda

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE          Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

 

F.A. No.36/2020

 

(Against the Order dt.06.08.2018 made in C.C. No.302/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

 

 

1. The Manager,

M/s. PNB Housing Finance Limited,

3^rd Floor, Sudarsan Building,

No.14, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. The Area Sales Manager,

M/s. PNB Housing Finance Limited,

3^rd Floor, Sudarsan Building,

No.14, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                            .. Appellants / Opposite parties 1 & 2.

 

-Versus-

 

Dr. R. Amutha,

P 3, Lotus Colony,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                   ..  Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties 1 & 2     : M/s. C.T. Prabakar

Counsel for Respondent  / Complainant                 : M/s. M. Ramesh

 

                This appeal coming up before me on 30.11.2023 for appearance of the appellant, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                   Docket Order

 

No representation for both parties.

This appeal is posted today for appearance of the appellant and for filing written arguments of both parties 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 it over and called again at 12.30 P.M. 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, this appeal is dismissed for default.    No costs.

 

               

                                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

                                                                        R.SUBBIAH                        

                                                                                                               PRESIDENT