Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/146/2017

S.Badri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manohar Reddy ,Prop. M/s. Nandan Builers - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K.S.Gowthaman

29 Mar 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                    Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH                                       ::  JUDICIAL  MEMBER

                                      Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::   MEMBER

 

FA. No. 146/2017

(Against the order in C.C. No.201/2013, dated 29.12.2016, on the file of

District Consumer Forum,Chennai(North)]

 

                                                                     DATED THE 29^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

Mr.S.Seshadri,

S/o Mr.R.Sampath,

No.22/2, Sarvalakshmi Flats,

38^th street, GKM colony,

Chennai 600 082                                           ..Appellant/complainant

                                           Vs

Mr.Manohar Reddy,

S/o Mr.C.K.Nandana Krishnan

Prop: M/s Nandan Builders

No.48, Bazaar street,

Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049                                    ..Respondent/opposite party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant                : M/s K.S.Gowthaman

Counsel for the Respondent/opposite party          : M/s N.Palaniaapan

 

          This appeal coming on before us for hearing today for appearance of appellant and for reporting compliance of adjournment cost, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                    Docket order     

          No representation for appellant. Respondent present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for reporting compliance and for filing written arguments of both and for arguments in list or for dismissal. 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 in person 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/-                                                            Sd/-

R.Venkatesaperumal       S.Karuppiah                                           R.Subbiah

Member                              Judl.Member                                           President