Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/108/2013

G. NATARAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIRIS INVESTMENT PVT LTD.,MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

D. THIRUMURTHY

14 Jun 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

 

F. A. No.108/2013

 

(Against the Order dt.21.12.2012 made in C.C. No.64/2011 on the file of

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

DATED THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

G. Natarajan,

No.19, First Cross Street,

Lake Area,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.                                                                 .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. M/s. Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.25, Mahalingapuram High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.     

 

2. M/s. Videocon Industries Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.14, KMS Stone Auvarangabad-Paithan Road,

Chitegaon Village,

Taluk Paithan,

Auvarangabad – 431 105. 

Branch Office at:-

RBN Towers,

3^rd Floor, AK-2, 4^th Avenue,

Shanthi Colony,

Anna Nagar - 600 040.

 

3. M/s. Videocon Service Centre,

Branch Office of Videocon Industries,

No.568, Poonamallee High Road,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.                                             .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant      : M/s. D. Thirumurthy

1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party        : Served called absent

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents /  

2^nd & 3^rd Opposite parties                       : M/s. S. Saravanan

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 14.06.2022 for appearance of both and 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 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 over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there was 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 order as to costs.

 

               

               Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT