Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/160/2018

B. Neelamegan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Arumugam Agency RGGL Gas Agency rep by its Proprietor and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. G. Vasudevan

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                     Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                ::      MEMBER

 

FA. No. 160/2018

(Against the order in C.C. No.8/2015, dated 22.2.2017, on the file of

District Consumer Commission, Chengalpattu)

 

                                                         DATED THIS THE 17^th   DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Mr.B.Neelamegan,

Son of Mr.Balakrishnan,

Mahalakshmi Avenue, Veeranam Road,

Thirupporur Taluk 603 103                        ..Appellant/complainant

 

                                            Vs

1. M/s Arumugam Agency RGGL Gas Agency,

Rep.by its Proprietor,

No.4-3, Kanniyappan Street,

Thaiyur post, Kancheepuram District         ..1^st Respondent/3^rd opposite party

 

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (Marketing Division),

Rep.by its Authorised Officer,

Indian Oil Bhavan,

139, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

(Nungambakkam High Road)

Chennai – 600 034

 

3. The Manager,

Indane Gas Agency,

500, Anna Salai, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018                          ..2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/1^st & 2^nd opposite parties

                                                      

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant              : M/s G.Vasudevan

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/3^rd Op              : M/s R.Veeramani

For the R2 and R3/ops 1 and 2                       : Given up

 

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

                                                                        Docket order

 

          No representation for Appellant and  R1.  This appeal is posted today for appearance 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 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.  Hence the appeal is dismissed for default.  No order as to cost.

   Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                    R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT