Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/101/2018

A.S.Santhanam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Ltd, Rep by its MD - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Santhanam

06 Jun 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

 

F. A. No.101/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.03.11.2016 made in C.C. No.07/2015 on the file of

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

DATED THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Mr. A.S. Santhanam,

Advocate,

Madras Senior Level,

No.10, 1^st Street,

Bharathi Nagar,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                                 .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. M/s. Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.30, Arcot Road,

(Opposite to Meenakshi College),

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

 

2. M/s. P M W Cares,

Represented by its Manager,

No.8/2, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar,

2^nd Street, No.32 A, North Usman Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                      .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Appellant / Complainant                                       : M/s. Party in person

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party  : M/s. Muthuselvam

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party                    : The Appeal dismissed as against the

                                                                                2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party                   

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 06.06.2022 for appearance of both and arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both parties. There was no representation for the appellant in person for the past several hearings.

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

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Appellant in person was not present.  Hence, passed over and called again at 12.30 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant in person.  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