Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/70/2017

Pittamandalam Venkata Dwarakesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hirco Groups ,Chennai Sales Office & 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. G.Poonkundran-Complt

28 Feb 2022

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.70/2017

                         DATED THE 28^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

Mr. Pittamandalam Venkata Dwarakesh,

S/o. Mr. P.V. Krishna Sharma,

Represented through his Power of Attorney

Mrs. M.S. Rukmani @ Rukmani Sharma,

W/o. Mr. P.V. Krishna Sharma,

Residing at:

No.A 34, Loganathan Street,

Vetri Nagar,

Chennai – 600 082.                                                                              .. Complainant.

-Versus-

1. Hirco Group : Chennai Sales Office,

Represented by Authorised person,

Gee Gee Universal, Ground Floor,

No.2/16, Mc. Nichols Road,

Chetpet,

Chennai – 600 031.  

 

2. Palace Gardens Chennai SEZ (P) Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

“Triveni Academy” Triveni Nagar,

Vadakkupattu Village,

Kancheepuram District,

Tamil Nadu – 603 204.

 

3. The Managing Director,

Palace Gardens,

Chennai SEZ (Pvt) Limited,

Sigma 6^th Floor, Technology Street,

Hiranandani Business Park,

Powai,

Mumbai – 400 076.

4. The Managing Director,

Evita Constructions (Pvt) Limited,

No.514, Dalamal Towers,

211, FPJ Marg,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 600 021.                                                                     .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. G. Poongundran

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party : M/s. K.B. Gopi

Opposite parties 1 to 3                  : Ex-parte

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.02.2022 for appearance of complainant, for reporting settlement and for filing Joint Memo of Compromise or for filing written arguments of 4^th opposite party and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket order

 

No representation for the complainant and 4^th opposite party. Today, this matter is posted for appearance of complainant, for reporting settlement and for filing Joint Memo of Compromise or for filing written arguments of 4^th opposite party and for arguments (in list) 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 01.15 P.M. still there was no representation of the complainant.  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.   No cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT