Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/146/2016

Mohindhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. SRD Promotors Private Limited, Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. Vishwanath

27 Jun 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 146/2016

 

                                                               DATED THIS THE  27^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

 

Mohindhar,

Son of Koduru Chengalraya Naidu,

Represent (on authorization) by his father

Koduru Chengalraya Naidu,

No. 30, West Street,

Pallipat, Thiruvallur District                                                  ..Complainant

 

                                      Vs

1. SRD Promoters Private Limited,

Represent by its Managing Director,

Mr.NSR Naarayanan,

Having their office at No. 12G, Thirumugam Nilayam,

West power House Road, (Near Railway Station)

TATABAD, Coimbatore 641 012

 

2. HDFC Bank,

Represent by its Branch Manager,

Having its branch office at

29, Kamaraj Road,

Near Circuit House,

Coimbatore – 18                                                             ..Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s S.C.Vishwanth

Counsel for the opposite party 2               : M/s K.J.Parthasarathy

1^st opposite party                             : Exparte  

 

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

                                                          ORDER

 

          No representation for both. This complaint is posted today for appearance of both and for filing written arguments of complainant and for arguments in list or for dismissal.   When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the complainant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

              Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT