Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/91/2012

SRIPATHY ASSOCEATES - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

A. SIVAJI

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.91/2012

DATED THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

 

M/s. Sripathy Associates,

Registered Partnership Firm,

Represented through its Managing Partner,

Having office at:-

No.62, Thangaperumal Street,

Erode.                                                                                                                                                              .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office – I,

No.78, T.V.S. Street,

Erode.

 

2. The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

No.73, Perundhurai Road,

Erode.

 

3. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by its Chief Engineer,

Fishing Harbour Project Circle,

DMS Compound,

Thenampet,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                                                                                                 .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. A. Sivaji

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2  : M/s. N. Premalatha

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party         : M/s. T. Ravi Kumar

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 22.04.2022 for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for the complainant.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 present.   Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 P.M. still there was no representation of the complainant.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT