Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/89/2016

Mrs.Saraswathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.B.Senthilkmar - Opp.Party(s)

B.Ramar, S.Anu

21 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                       Complaint presented on:  23.05.2016

                                                                          Order pronounced on:  21.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.:           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 21^st  DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

                                      C.C.NO.89/2016

 

 

Mrs.Saraswathy,

No.58 Block D, Ramakrishna Madam Street,

Pillaiyar Koil Garden, Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

                                                                                      ..... Complainant

 

                                     ..Vs..

 

Mr.R.B.Senthilkumar,

M/s.Parthass Engineering Contractors,

No.1/169 Sundaramoorthy Street,

Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.

                                                                               …..Opposite party 

 

 

 

 

                                                         

Date of complaint                                              :06.06.2016

Counsel for complainant                         :M/s.B.Ramar, S.Anu

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : Not appeared

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

No representation for Complainant till 2.45 p.m. The 1^st hearing posted to 08.07.2016. The notice cover returned as left. Thereafter fresh notice ordered to take privately to correct address for more than 12 hearings. No steps was taken by the Complainant to send fresh notice in all the hearings. Lastly on 23.05.2017 hearing fresh notice ordered as last chance for today’s hearing and no steps was taken and no representation for Complainant. Complainant   also called absent till 2.45 p.m. The steps not taken by the Complainant only shows that, she has no interest in prosecuting the Complaint. Hence, the Complaint is dismissed for default for non prosecution.

                 Pronounced by us on this 21^st   day of June 2017.

 

      -sd-                                                                                 -sd-     

MEMBER – II                                                              PRESIDENT