Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/44/2017

Kamala Devi Chordia - Complainant(s)

Versus

I.S.P Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Rep. by its Managing Director & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R.Vijayaraghavan

31 Jul 2023

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

                     

C.C. No.44/2017

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2023

1. Ms. Kamala Devi Chordia,

2. Ms. Surekah Devi Chordia,

3. Ms. Manisha Chordia,

 

All are residing at:

No.55, Hunters Road,

III Floor, Flat No.301,

Chennai – 600 112.                                                                             .. Complainants.                                                   

- Versus –

1. S.P. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Mr. Pavan Voora,

Voora J.K. Tower, 4^th Floor,

New No.28, Old No.79, Bazullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. Mr. Pavan Voora,

Managing Director,

M/s. I.S.P Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,

Voora J.K. tower, 4^th Floor,

New No.28, Old No.79, Bazullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants                        : M/s. M. Aravind Kumar

Counsel for the opposite parties                    : M/s. K. Ganesan

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 31.07.2023                                                             for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court: 

                                                    Docket Order

 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 present and ready for arguments. No representation for the complainant.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 P.M., still, there was no representation for 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, this consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No costs.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT