Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/70/2012

V. CHANDRAKUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MET LIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., THE MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

V. RAGAVACHARI

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                 BEFORE        THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI    PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                           TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                 MEMBER

                             

                                                                                                           C.C. 70/2012

Dated this the 4^th day of JUNE 2015

V.Chandrakumar

S/o V.R.Venugopal, Hindu, aged 61 years

old No.33, New No.19, Desai Narayana Chetty street

Vellore – 632 004                                                      ..Complainant

                                            Vs

1. The Manager

Met Life India Insurance Company Limited

Brigade Sesha Mahal

No.5, Vani Vilas Road

Bangalore- 560 004  

 

2. The Manager

Met Life India Insurance Company Limited

30, Sr.Arcade, 3^rd Floor, Officer’s line

Vellore, Tamilnadu 632 001                                   ..opp.party

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s V. Raghavachari, V.Srimathi

Counsel for the opp.party         : M/s .B.Dhanasekaran

     THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI    PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                     No representation for complainant for the past many hearings, from October 2012. On 29.4.2014 also since there was no representation for the complainant, the case was adjourned to 4.6.2015, specifically for the filing of proof affidavit of the complainant or for dismissal. Today also there is no representation for the complainant. Proof affidavit of the complainant also not filed from the year 2012. Complainant is also absent, thereby showing that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The complaint was filed during the year 2012. Now almost three years completed. But the complainant had not taken any efforts to conduct the case. The respondent’s counsels are present.

      Therefore no useful purpose will be served in keeping the complaint on file. Hence the complaint is dismissed for default.

 

      Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                            

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                          A.K.ANNAMALAI

MEMBER                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER