Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/71/2019

Union Bank of India, Rep by its the Chief Manager, Mugappair, Chennai-50. - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Venkatesan, S/o K. Parasuraman, Prop. Dee Pee Engineering, Padi, Chennai-50. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. L. Jayakumar

28 Jun 2023

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

 

F.A. No.71/2019

 

(Against the Order dt.29.01.2019 made in C.C. No.205/2009 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

Union Bank of India,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

TSK Nagar Branch,

R-32, TNHB Commercial Complex,

Mugappair,

Chennai – 600 050.                                                        .. Appellant / Opposite party.

 

-Versus-

P. Venkatesan,

S/o. Mr. K. Parasuraman,

Proprietor,

Dee Pee Engineering,

No.20, Kamarajar Street,

Gopal Naicker Nagar,

Padi,

Chennai – 600 050.                                                    .. Respondent  / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for Appellant / Opposite party                  : M/s. L. Jayakumar Associates

Counsel for Respondent  / Complainant                : M/s. B.R. Shankaralingam

 

                       This appeal coming up before us on 28.06.2023 for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:  

                                                                                             

Docket Order

 

Respondent present. No representation for the appellant.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the appellant was not present.   Hence, passed over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed for default.    No costs.

 

 

               

                Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                        R.SUBBIAH                       

             MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT