Date of Filling:      24.02.2005

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  12.10.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

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

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

 EA. No.03/2005 IN CC.No.19/2004

FRIDAY, THE 12^th  DAY OF OCTOBER  2018

1. D.Manjula,

    W/o.G.Dakshnamoorty,

2.Dhakshnamoorty,

    S/o.Late. Ganesan

   Both are residing at:

   No.8/8, 4-B, Main Road,

   Lakshmipura,

   Thirunindravur, Poonamallee Taulk,

   Thiruvallur District.                                    ………    Decree Holders/Complainants

                                                //Vs//

1.The Branch Manager,

    Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd.,

   Ambathur Branch,

   No.215, 1^st Floor – M.T.H. Road,

   Chennai - 600 053.

2.Park Town Benefit Fund Ltd.,

   Rep.by its Managing Director,

   No.223, South Mint Street, 1^st Floor,

   Chennai - 3                                             …Judgment Debtors/Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                 :  V.Murali. Advocate

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party        :  ex-parte.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party       :  B.Kamarajan. Advocate

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU S.PANDIAN. PRESIDENT.

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner/decree Holder against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor for compliance of the order in Consumer Complaint No.19/2004 dated 29.10.2004 failing which, order for Arrest  of the Respondent/Judgment debtor U/S of Consumer Protection Act-1986.

2. Both called absent.  No other representation on both sides.  It is seen from the adjudication that both of them have not been appeared for a long time.  At the outset, it is adjourned for the reason that the interim stay granted by the Honble High Court in CMP. Appeal No.2630/2007 for morethen 11 years without any further representation on both sides.

3. At this juncture, now on careful perusal of the documents and other reasons, it is learnt that, the interim stay was extended till the filing of the memo by the Respondent/JD/Op herein and Recorded on 24.06.2008.  Though there is no representation either in person or through counsel for the Respondent regarding the further extension of the said interim stay. 

4. More so, the petitioner/D.H/Complainant also has not appeared and not placing anything about the pendency of the interim stay of CMP. Appeal No.2630/2007.  Such kind of non-representation on both sides which clearly reveals the fact that the matter has been otherwise settled, Since from the order dated 23.11.07 by the Honble High Court, that the petitioner/DH/Complainant herein herself admitted that the interest only pending to be paid.  Therefore it can be presumed that as already aforesaid the matter has been otherwise settled because of the long absence and silence of the petitioner/DH/Complainant.

5. In such circumstances, considering the long pending of this EA, i.e. for a long 13 years, it is unnecessary to prolong the matter further by wasting further time of this Forum.  Not only that, there is no limitation in filing of the E.A under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and thereby no prejudice will be caused to anybody.

In the Result, this E.A. is dismissed at this stage.  No Cost.

This order has been pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 12^th October 2018.

      -Sd-                                                                                      -Sd-

  MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT.