Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/11/2019

Mr. M. Harry Patrick, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Fresh, and another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P. Jeyaprakasm

22 Apr 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.11/2019

 

(Against the Order dt.22.10.2018 made in C.C. No.162/2016 on the file of

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

DATED THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

 

Mr. M. Harry Patrick,

S/o. Mr. Micheal Joseph,

No.57/24, Jothi Ramalingam Street,

New Kamaraj Nagar,

Chennai – 600 039.                                                                                                                            .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. M/s. Reliance Fresh,

Represented by its Store Manager,

Reliance Retail Ltd.,

MPM Road,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 039.

 

2. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., (HUL),

Represented by its Managing Director,

Unilever House,

B.D. Sawant Marg,

Chakala,

Antheri East,

Mumbai – 400 099.                                                                                                                     .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                     : M/s. P. Jeyaprasasam

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party   : M/s. K. Ravi Kumar

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd  Opposite party : M/s. Maithili Associates

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 22.04.2022 for appearance of the appellant and 1^st respondent, for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for the appellant and 2^nd respondent.  1^st Respondent present.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and 1^st respondent, for filing written arguments of appellant 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 12.30 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