Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/113/2012

V. NEELAVATHY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

V. SHANMUGAVELU

28 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

 

C.C. No.113/2012

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

 

1. V. Neelavathy Ammal,

W/o. Mr. Vairavanservai,

 

2. M. Arul Mozhi,

W/o. Mahalingam,

 

3. M. Siva Vairavan,

S/o. Mahalingam,

 

4. Rishi Shringer,

S/o. Mr. Mahalingam,

 

All are residing at:-

Kundamaraikkadu,

Kuruvikkarambai (Post),

Peravurani Taluk,

Thanjavur District.                                                                                                                                .. Complainants.

 

-Versus-

 

1. Reserve Bank of India,

Represented by the Customer Grievance & Redressal Officer,

Chennai – 600 009.

 

2. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

(Customer Redressal Officer),

State Bank on India Regional Head Office,

Second Line Beach,

Chennai – 600 001.   

 

 

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Peravurani,

Thanjavur – 614 804.                                                                                                                       .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. V. Shanmugavelu

1^st Opposite party                                  : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3  : M/s. S. Makesh

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.04.2022 for appearance of both and for reporting settlement or for argument or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

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

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of both and for reporting settlement or for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 P.M. still there was no representation for the complainant  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

                Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                     R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT