Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/260/2017

Mrs.Dhiranya - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Puravankara Projects Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Vijay Krishna

30 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

                               BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                             PRESIDENT

                                                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.260/2017

                                                             DATED THE 30^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

 

 

Mrs. Dhiranya,

No.7, Naveen Oak Apartment,

North Avenue,

Shri Nagar Colony,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.                                                                              .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. M/s. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED,

    Represented by its Deputy Managing Director S.Karthik,

    Office at No.7, Sheshadri Road, LVR Centre,

    Alwarpet,

    Chennai – 600 018.

 

2. M/s. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED,

    Represented by its Deputy Managing Director S.Karthik,

    Office at No.36/2 Gandhi Mandapam Road,

    Kotturpuram,,

    Chennai.

 

3.  M/s. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED,

     Represented by its Chairman Mr. Ravi Puravankara S.Karthik,

     No.130/1 Ulsoor Road,

     Bangalore-560042.                                                                     .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. R. Vijayakrishna

Counsel for the Opposite parties 2 & 3  : M/s. Sathishkumar

Version of Opposite parties 2 & 3  filed

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.12.2021 for appearance of complainant and for steps to amend the cause title or for Dismissal.                                  

Docket order

 

            No representation for complainant. Opposite parties 2 & 3 present. Today, this matter is posted for appearance of complainant and for steps to amend the cause title or for dismissal. When this matter was called at 11.00 a.m, there was no representation for complainant, hence the matter was passed over and again called at 12.45 noon, the complainant was again not present. Since the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case, the complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

            MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT