Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/210/2017

Francena white - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC bank pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Chennai law firm

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

C.C. No.210/2017

DATED THE 30^TH  DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

 

Ms. Francena White,

D/o. Mr. James,

No.59, 83^rd Street,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                                                                               .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

HDFC Bank,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Perungudi Branch,

No.27, New MGR Road,

Kandanchavadi,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.                                                                              .. Opposite Party.

 

Counsel for the complainant      : M/s. Chennai Law Firm

Counsel for the opposite party   : M/s. Pass Associates

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.03.2022 for appearance of the complainant and for filing proof affidavit of complainant as finally or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for complainant.  Opposite party present.  Though sufficient opportunities has been given, the complainant has not chosen to file proof affidavit for a long time.  The matter is also pending from the year 2017. 

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant and for filing proof affidavit of complainant as finally or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.00 Noon but the complainant has neither represented nor filed the proof affidavit.  Hence we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default for non-filing of proof affidavit.   No cost.

 

 

 

                Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT