Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/5/2011

K. MEIKANDASHIVAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

NALINI KUMARI - Opp.Party(s)

A.R. SURESH

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. 5/2011

 

                                                                DATED THE 31^st  DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

Mr.J.Meikandashivam,

S/o P.Kuppuswamy,

Residing at No.15/12, Old No. 12,

Padavattamman koil street,

Paadi, Chennai 600 050                                         ..Complainant

 

                                                Vs

1.Mrs. Nalini Kumari,

W/o Thomas Mathew,

Residing at MIG Flats,

No.101/61, 30^th cross street,

7^th Avenue, Besant Nagar,

Chennai – 600 090   

 

2. Mr. Kishore Babu,

S/o Ramaling Reddy,

Residing at MIG Flats,

No.101/61

 Besant Nagar,

Chennai – 600 090   

 

3. Mrs. S.Thenmozhi,

W/o K.Srinivasan,

No.26, East Avenue, Periyar Nagar,

Korattur, Chennai – 600 080                                       ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s.A.R.Suresh

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2        : M/s S.B.Murugesan

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party              : M/s L.J.Krishnamoorthy

 

          This complaint coming on before us for hearing today for appearance of both and for arguments in list or for dismissal, 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 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 12.45 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