Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

TA/12/2021

S. Jayaraman, Age -74 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, And Another - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                         STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

                                       BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                                                                Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

T.A. No.12/2021

                                                                 DATED THE 25^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

S.Jayaraman, Aged 74,

S/o Shanmuga Nadar

6/125, 3^rd street B.M.Samy colony,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002                     ..petitioner/complainant 

 

                                                       Vs

 

1. The Proprietor,

Rathna Bus Service,

No.12, Chidambaram Nagar,

1^st street, Tuticorin – 628 008

 

2. The RTO - Tuticorin

Tuticorin RTO office,

Korampallam,

Tuticorin – 628 101                                      ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

For For the petitioner/complainant                : Mr.S.Jayaraman/ party in person

1^st Respondent                                                : Served called absent

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd              : M/s R.Saravana Kumar

 

            This petition coming on before us today for appearance of petitioner in person and for filing counter of  R2 and for enquiry or for dismissal, this commission made the following order in open court :-                                              

                                                                        Docket order

            No representation for petitioner/party in person. 2^nd Respondent present.  This transfer application is posted today for appearance of petitioner in person and for enquiry or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M,  the petitioner was not present  hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.30 noon, then also the petitioner has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the Transfer application pending is of no use as the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. The Transfer Application is dismissed.  No order as to cost.    

             Sd/-                                                                                                             Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH                        

           MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT