Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/109/2013

ST. JOHN FRIGHT SYSTEMS LTD, LOGISTICS AND SHIPPING - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P.K. SHRINIVASAN

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

                     

C.C. No.109/2013

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

M/s. St. John Fright Systems Ltd.,

Logistics and Shipping,

Repd. by Mr. R. Devanathan,

Corporate Internal Auditor,

Having office at:

No.480, Anna Salai,

Khivraj Building Complex II,

7^th Floor, Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.                                                                            .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Having Office at:

No.40, Pereira Street,

Tuticorin – 628 001.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

Grievance Cell,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Having Head Office at:

No.6 A, Middletom Street,

Kolkata – 700 071.                                                                          .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                           : M/s. P.K. Srinivasan

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2           : M/s. Nageswaran & Narichania

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.08.2022 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

 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 were present and ready for arguments.  No representation for the complainant. There was no representation for the complainant for the past several hearings.

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 the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 P.M. still, there was no representation for 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/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT