Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/145/2015

Isaac - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra India & World Head Quarters, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & anr - Opp.Party(s)

M. Udhaya Banu

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

C.C. No.145/2015

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

Mr. Isaac,

S/o. Mr. Basha,

No.15, TAHDCO Colony,

Thirupachur Post,

Thiruvallur – 631 203.                                                                             .. Complainant. 

 

-Versus-

1. M/s. Mahindra India & World Head Quarters,

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Mahindra Towers,

GM Bhosale Marg,

Mumbai – 400 018.

India. 

 

2. The Managing Director,

MPL Auto Mobiles Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,

AMPA Manor, No.107/1,

Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.                                                                            .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant             : M/s. Prof. M. Udhaya Bhanu

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party    : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

2^nd Opposite party                             : Exparte

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.03.2022 for appearance of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

 

Docket order

 

No representation for complainant.  1^st Opposite party present.  1^st Opposite party ready.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.   When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.00 Noon still there was no representation of the complainant.  Hence we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

 

                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT