Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/303/2014

CATHRINE A. MATHEW - Complainant(s)

Versus

GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

N. MAHESWARAIAH

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                            Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 303/2014

(Against the order in C.C. No.170/2012, dated 16.6.2014, on the file of

District Consumer Forum, Chennai(North)

 

                                                              DATED THIS THE 7^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Mrs. Cathrine S.Mathew,

Door No.13, Sairam Avenue,

Valasaravakkam,

Chennai – 600 087                                ..Appellant/complainant

                                         Vs

1. Godrej & Boyce,

Manufacturing Co.Ltd,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Piroj Shanagar,

Vikhroli, Mumbai – 400 079

 

2. G.K.Aircons,

Authorized supplier,

Rep.by its Manager,

 No.1/30, Thirupurkumaran street,

Vyasarpadi, Chennai – 600 039  

 

3. Vasanth & Co,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No.11, Railway Border,

1^st Kaveri Nagar,

Saidapet, Chennai 600 015                        ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant            : M/s N.Maheswaraiah,

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent                       : M/s T.S.Gopalan

Counsel for the 3^rd Respondent                      : M/s Siva Suyambu

2^nd Respondent                                             : served called absent

 

          This appeal is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                     

                                                  Docket order

     No representation for appellant and 3^rd Respondent. 1^st Respondent present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and R3 and for reporting settlement and  for arguments in list or for dismissal. Today when the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the appellant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, then also the appellant has not appeared. 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. The appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT