Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/107/2018

J.Antony Raja Selvam - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Yamaha Motor P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.Antony Jesus

28 Nov 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.107/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.26.02.2018 made in C.C. No.24/2016 on the file of

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

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

J. Antony Raja Selvan,

S/o. Mr. P. Joseph Xavier,

No.4/10, Vadakku Battai 2^nd Street,

Village Street, Sathuma Nagar,

Tiruvottriyur,

Chennai – 600 019.                                                            .. Appellant / Complainant

-Versus-

 

1. India Yamaha Motor Private Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

A-3, Ind. Area, Noida-Dadri Road,

Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh,

India – 201 306.

 

2. Walters Yamaha,

Represented by its Manager,

No.740, Thiruvottriyur High Road,

New Washermanpet-Tondiarpet,

Chennai – 600 081.                                                   .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                  : M/s. J. Antony Jesus

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party : M/s. Inthu Karunakaran

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party                   : Served called absent

          This appeal coming up before us on 28.11.2022 for appearance of both parties and for filing written arguments of both parties and for 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, for filing written arguments 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 is 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, the appeal is dismissed for default.    No order as to costs.

 

               

               Sd/-                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT