Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/131/2013

N. CHIDAMBARAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUONI TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD, SENIOR EXECUTIVE - SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

P.L. NARAYANAN

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                     Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::   MEMBER

 

                                                                                               CC. No. 131/2013

                   DATED THIS THE 29^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

N.Chidambaram,

S/o Narayanan,

 

2. C.Kannammai,

W/o N.Chidambaram,

 

3. C.Unnamalai (Minor),

Rep.by father and natural guardian,

N.Chidambaram,

 

All are residing at ‘Kalpataru”,

No.9, Fourth Main Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028                       ..Complainants

 

                                               Vs

 

1. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt Ltd,

Represented by Senior Executive – Services,

SOTC House, No. 134,

Valluvar Kottam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034  

 

2. Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt.Ltd,

Represented by Deputy Manager,

Customer care, 8^th Floor, Urmi Estate,

95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel (West),

Mumbai – 400 013                                              ..Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainants                            : M/s P.L.Narayanan

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2            : M/s Menon Associates

 

          This complaint is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :

                                                 Docket order

     No representation for complainant.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for taking steps to amend the cause title of opposite parties of 1  and 2 as last chance or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M,  the complainant was not present  hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.30 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.   The complaint is dismissed for default.  No order as to cost.

 Sd/-                                                                                                            Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                  PRESIDENT