Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/25/2015

Mr.B.Chandru, S/o.T.D.Balasubramani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sree Saairam Constructions Rep by its Proprietor Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Chandrasekaran

25 Nov 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.25/2015

                         DATED THE 25^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

Mr. B. Chandru,

S/o. Mr. T.D. Balasubramani,

Representd by Power of Attorney

Mr. M. Soundaria,

No.L-6/1, TNHB Colony,

Korattur,

Chennai – 600 080.                                                                                                                                   .. Complainant.

 

-Versus-

1. M/s. Sree Saairam Constructions,

Rep. by its Proprietor

Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi,

Plot No.1, 2^nd Main Road,

Gangaiamman Nagar,

Hasthinapuram,

Chrompet,

Chennai – 600 044.

 

2. Mrs. S. Vijayalakshmi,

W/o. Late J. Senthil Kumar,

 Plot No.1, 2^nd Main Road,

Gangaiamman Nagar,

Hasthinapuram,

Chrompet,

Chennai – 600 044.

 

3. Mr. S.D. Udayashankar,

S/o. Mr. S.D. Damodaran,

No.9, Haddows Road,

Aarthi Apartments,

(Near Shastri Bhavan),

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.                                                                                                                       .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. K. Chandrasekaran

Opposite parties 1 & 2                          : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party        : M/s. Complaint dismissed against OP3

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 25.11.2021 for appearance of complainant and for arguments (in list) and this Commission made the following order in open court:                                                      

Docket order

No representation for complainant.  Today, this matter is posted for appearance of complainant and for arguments in list.   When the matter was called at 11.40 A.M., there was no representation for complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.10 P.M. the complainant was again not present, proof affidavit also not filed.  Since the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case, the complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                                   R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT