Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/97/2022

S.Bageerathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional manager & anr - Opp.Party(s)

S.Meaha

30 Jan 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

                     

R.P. No.97/2022

(Against the Order in CMP No.30/2021 in C.C. No.322/2019 dated:18.08.2022 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

S. Bageerathan,

S/o. Mr. K. Shanmuga Sundaram,

No.401, Jayashree Apartments, 4^th Floor,

2^nd Main Road, Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai   600 028.                          .. Revision Petitioner / Respondent / Complainant.                                                   

  Versus  

1. National Insurance Company,

Represented by its Regional Manager,

Regional Office:

No.190, 2^nd Floor, Anna Salai,

Chennai   600 006.

 

2. National Insurance Company,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

No.154, 1^st Floor, Kundrathur Main Road,

Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.                                .. Respondents / Petitioners/ Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Complainant   : M/s. S. Meeha

Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite parties      : M/s. S. Vadivel

 

This Revision Petition coming up before us on 30.01.2023 for appearance of the Revision Petitioner and for enquiry or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                     

 Docket Order

 

No representation for the Revision Petitioner.   Respondent Nos.1 & 2 present.

This revision petition is posted today for appearance of the revision petitioner and for inquiry or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the revision petitioner was not present.   Hence, passed over and called again at 01.30 P.M. Still, there is no representation for the revision petitioner.   Hence, we are of the view that keeping the revision petition pending is of no use as the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for default.   No order as to costs.

 

 

               Sd                                                                                                        Sd                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT