Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/30/2015

A.Deepa, W/o.Late N.C.Anand, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sivakumar,

17 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

C.C. No.30/2015

                                                                      DATED THE 17^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

A. Deepa,

W/o. Late N. C. Anand,

No.2/299, A4 Narino Garden,

Kasthurinayakanpalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 041.                                                                                                               .. Complainant.

                                                                                                 -Versus-

1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by  its Managing Director,

India Bulls Centre,

Tower 3, 6^th Floor,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone (W),

Mumbai – 400 013.                                                              

 

Branch Office at:-

2. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited,

May Flower – Mid City,

II Floor, No.1510, Trichy Road,

Coimbatore  -18.                                                                               .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. R. Sivakumar

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2  : M/s. N. Vijayaraghavan

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us for appearance of the complainant and for arguments on 17.09.2021 and for hearing upon this Commission made the following:-                                     

Docket order

            No representation for complainant. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for arguments.   When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M., there is no representation for the complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 noon.   But the complainant was again not present, since the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed.   Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default.  No order as to cost.

 

 

                   Sd/-                                                                                                    Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                                PRESIDENT