Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CMP16/14CC51/13

Mrs.Hemabharathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s R.R.S.Constructions - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K.Bhasker

17 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                                     Date of Filling      :  22.10.2013.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  17.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

 

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.51/2013

(Dated this Tuesday the 17^th day of May 2016)

 

Mrs. Hemabharathi,

Plot No.26, 27,

Sri Vijaya Nagar,

Ayanambakkam,

Chennai - 600 095.                                                                    … Complainant.

/ Versus /

 

M/s. R.R.S. Constructions,

Rep: Sole Proprietor,

K. Raju,

No.63, Vellalar Street,

Mogappair West,

Chennai - 600 037.                                                                … Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant                            : Thiru. K. Bhasker

Counsel for the Opposite party                        : Ex-parte

ORDER

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking Rs.1,43,000/- towards deficiency of service and damages caused in building the apartment of the complainant and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant.

          Both parties called absent.  No other representation on the side of the complainant.  The counsel for the complainant has already filed memo for reporting No instruction.   Even then, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the complainant to put forth his case, the complainant did not turn up.   It clearly shows the disinterest of the complainant in the progress of the case.   Therefore, there is no justification to proceed further.  Moreover, on careful perusal, the complainant has not come forward to prove his complaint by means of relevant and acceptable evidence, and thereby the complainant has failed to comply the duly cast upon him.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT