Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/49/2013

K.Kathiravan - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Balaji, Annai Clinic & 4 others - Opp.Party(s)

Vasugi Ramanan,

26 Apr 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

                     

C.C. No.49/2013

DATED THE 26^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

K. Kathiravan,

S/o. Mr. M. Kannan,

New No.114, Gopi Street,

Konerirajapuram -  Post,

Mayiladuthurai Taluk,

Nagapattinam District.                                                                             .. Complainant.                                                   

- Versus –

1. Dr. S. Balaji,

Annai Clinic,

No.2/59, East Coast Road,

Injambakkam, Chennai – 600 115.

 

2. Sarmili,

W/o. Dr. S. Balaji,

No.14, Valmiki Street,

Pon Vidyasram Garden,

Injambakkam,

Chennai – 115.

 

3. Mr. M.N. Rajamani Bheem Rao, M.D.,

Associate Professor,

Forensic Medicine Department,

Royapettah Govt. Hospital,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

4. The Inspector of Police,

A-8, Neelankarai Police Station,

Chennai – 600 041.

 

5. Dr. P. Vijayakumar, M.S., M.Ch.,

Tutor / Asst. Professor,

Forensic Medicine Department,

Govt. Royapettah Hospital,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                                  .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                        : M/s. Vasugi Ramanan

Counsel for the Opposite parties 1 & 2        : M/s. Subbu Ranga Bharathi     

3^rd Opposite party                                        : Exparte 

Opposite parties 4 & 5                                 : The complaint as against the opposite 

                                                                       parties 4 & 5 has been withdrawn by the

                                                                       complainant.

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 26.04.2023 for reporting settlement and for filing Joint Memo of Compromise or for continuation of arguments and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

Complainant, 1^st & 2^nd Opposite parties present.

 

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by both Counsels that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and also a Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed by them to that effect. 

As per the compromise, the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft vide No.2313 dt.25.04.2023 to the complainant towards full and final settlement.  The complainant has also expressed his full satisfaction. 

Hence, recording the Joint Memo of Compromise, this Consumer Complaint is disposed off.  The Joint Memorandum of Compromise shall form part of the order.   No costs.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                         

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT