Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/54/2019

M/s Rajalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SRM Bricks & Agri Firm, And another. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Waraon & Sai Rams,

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                          Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 54/2019

(Against the order in C.C. No. 148/2015, dated 23.10.2017, on the file of

District Consumer Forum, Chennai(North)

   DATED THIS THE 27^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

M/s Rajalakshmi Automobiles Pvt.Ltd,

Rep.by the Managing Director,

No.259, Bye Pass Road,

Poonamallee,

Chennai 600 056                                           ..Appellant/opposite party No.2

 

                                        Vs

 

1.M/s SRM Bricks & Agri Firm,

Represented by its partner R.Raghavan,

Having office at No.2/181-C,

Pugazhenthi Salai,

J.J.Nagar,

Mugappair East,

Chennai 600 037                                   ..1^st Respondent/complainant

 

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Trucks and Buses Division,

II Floor, “Mahindra Towers”,

Worli, Mumbai – 400 018                      ..2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party No.2  :   M/s Warron & Sai Rams,Advocate

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/complainant    :   M/s V.Shankar,Advocate

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party : M/s Shivakumar & Suresh,Advocate

          This appeal is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                                                 Docket order

          No representation for appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant 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 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/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT