Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/126/2015

Bank of India, Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. Shahul Hameed - Opp.Party(s)

S. Sathiyanarayanan

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                 Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 126/2015

(Against the order in C.C. No.376/2008, dated 23.12.2014, on the file of

District Consumer Forum, Chennai(South)

 

                                                               DATED THIS THE 27^th  DAY OF JULY 2022

 

M/s Bank of India,

Usman Road Branch,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017

Represented by its Branch Manager                   ..Appellant/1^st opposite party             

 

                                                   Versus

1.K.Shahul Hameed,

S/o Kaja Mohideen,

No.10, Lucky Plaza, Shop No.26,

1^st Floor, Ranganathan street,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017                             ..Respondent/complainant

 

2. The Manager,

City Finance,

17, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004                         ..Respondent/2^nd opposite party

 

3. The Chairman,

Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd,

Hoechst House, 6^th floor,

193, Backbay Reclamation,

Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021                  ..Respondent/3^rd opposite party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/1^st op                        : M/s Sathyanarayanan

Counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant        : M/s D.Kamatchi

2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party                     : PP effected called absent

Counsel for the 3^rd Respondent/3^rd op                : M/s S.Parthasarathy

 

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 R3. 1^st respondent present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant 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