Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/285/2013

S. MYTHILI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAIRASI PAWNBROKER SHOP, THE PROPRIETOR - Opp.Party(s)

P. VENUGOPAL

06 Jun 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.285/2013

 

(Against the Order dt.17.10.2012 made in C.C. No.99/2010  on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Cuddalore)

DATED THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

S. Mythili,

W/o. Mr. Subramanian,

No.16, Moorai Mettu Street,

Nellikuppam,

Panruti District.                                                                     .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. The Proprietor,

Kairasi Pawnbroker Shop,

No.78, Main Road,

Nellikuppam – 607 105.

 

2. The Revenue Inspector,

Nellikuppam Pirka,

Nellikuppam,

Panruti District.

 

3. The Thasildar,

Panruti,

Panruti District.                                                           .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                   : M/s. P. Venugopal

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party  : M/s. Praveen Sethia

3^rd Respondent / 3^rd Opposite party                     : Served called absent 

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 06.06.2022 for appearance of the appellant, for reporting compliance of adjournment cost of Rs.500/- by the respondent to the Registrar and arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both.  There was no representation for both parties for the past several hearings.

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both, for reporting compliance of Rs.500/- as cost by the Respondent to the Registrar 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 12.30 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