Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/173/2017

Karthiayani Sivasankaran & anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Elysium Properties India (P) Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director & anr - Opp.Party(s)

V.Manohar-Compt.,

31 Mar 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                     Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH                                             ::  JUDICIAL  MEMBER

                                                     Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                       ::   MEMBER

 

CC. No. 173/2017

                                                               DATED THIS THE 31^st  DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

1.Mrs. Karthiayani Sivasankaran,

2. Mr. Uppukuzhiyil Sivasankaran Nair,

1 and 2 at Villa No.123, Elysium Flushing Meadows,

Globus Gardents, Kaikolampalayam,

Coimbatore 641 062                                                                                                 ..Complainants

                                          Vs

1.M/s Elysium Properties India (P) Ltd,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No.699, Avinashi Road,

Coimbatore  641 037

 

2. M/s Globuse Realtors Private Limited,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

‘Indra Prastham’ 

Bharathi Park Road Cross 2,

Saibaba colony, Coimbatore 641 011                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainants               : M/s V.Manohar

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party         : M/s S.Pravin Rathinam

2^nd opposite party                               : Exparte

 

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

                                                    Docket 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. The complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

 

     Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL       S.KARUPPIAH                                           R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                   JUDL.MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT