Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/4/2010

RVJ. DEVADOSS - Complainant(s)

Versus

LA FREIGHTLIFT PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

FART TRACK LAW ASSO

19 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                      BEFORE        Thiru.J.JAYARAM                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                              Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

C.C.NO. 4/2010

DATED THIS THE 19^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2015

RVJ Devadoss,

S/o Late C.Royappan

Proprietor M/s Printech Fashions

No.29, Erukkadu 4^th street

Karuvampalayam

Tiruppur – 641 604                                                                                  ..complainant

                                                                           Vs

1.M/s La Freightlift Pvt Ltd,

No.32, 32A, 2^nd cross street

VGP Murphy square

St.Thomas Mount,

Chennai 600 016   

 

2. Mr.A.Venkatesan

Managing Director,

No.32, 32 A, 2^nd cross street

VGP Murphy square

St.Thomas Mount,

Chennai 600 016   

 

3. Mrs. Rajakumari

W/o Mr.A.Venkatesan

 Director,

No.32, 32 A, 2^nd cross street

VGP Murphy square

St.Thomas Mount,

Chennai 600 016                                                                                       ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s Fast Track Law Association

Counsel for the opposite parties      : M/s Rajnish Pathiyil

 

      This complaint coming before us on 19.8.2015 for final hearing, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

        Opposite parties’ counsel present. No representation for complainant for the past hearings, from April 2014. On 12.6.2015 also since there was no representation for the complainant, the case was adjourned to 28.7.2015, specifically for the appearance of the complainant or for disposal, and since there was no sitting on that day, it was again reposted to 19.8.2015. Today also there is no representation for the complainant. Complainant is also absent,  thereby showing that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The case is of the year 2010. But the complainant had not taken any efforts to conduct the case. Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the complaint on file. Hence the complaint is dismissed for default.

            Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

  P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        J. JAYARAM                    

        MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER