Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/267/2017

The Authorized Signatory, Jain Irrigation System & anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Gunasekaran - Opp.Party(s)

P.Venugopal

28 Feb 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.267/2017

 

(Against the Order dt.09.11.2016 made in C.C. No.95/2014 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Cuddalore)

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

1. The Authorized Signatory,

Jain Irrigation System,

S1, Second Floor,

SHARANS JAYAM,

New No.37, Bazullah Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. The Proprietor,

Quality Enterprises,

No.185/ 24, Chennai Salai,

L.N. Puram,

Panruti.                                                                       .. Appellants / Opposite parties.

-Versus-

P. Gunasekaran,

S/o. Mr. Perumal,

No.27, New Friends Nagar,

Thottapattu,

Cuddalore.                                                                     .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties           : M/s. P. Venugopal

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant              : M/s. V. Manoharan

      

                This appeal coming up before us on 28.02.2023 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

 

No representation for both parties.  

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, the appeal is dismissed for default.    No order as to costs.

 

               

                Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                        R.SUBBIAH                       

             MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT