Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/231/2017

M/s. Sree Kuladevatha Construction, Rep by its Proprietor Ahil Mani - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Srikumar, Rep by his POA N.S.Srinivasan & anr - Opp.Party(s)

Adinarayana Rao

28 Feb 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

 

F.A. No.231/2017

 

(Against the Order dt.13.04.2017 made in C.C. No.83/2013 on the file of

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

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

 

M/s. Sree Kuladevatha Construction,

Represented by its Proprietor,

No.77, W-Block,

4^th Street, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.                                                     .. Appellant / 1^st Opposite party.

-Versus-

1. S. Srikumar,

Represented by his POA,

Mr. N.S. Srinivasan,

No.6/ 27, ‘E’ Type,

Kaviarasu Kamadasan Nagar,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                   .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.

 

2. M/s. Kumeran Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by their Managing Director,

No.1, VOC II Main Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                       .. 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Appellant / 1^st Opposite party    : M/s. Adinarayana Rao

Counsel for 1^st Respondent / Complainant   : M/s. Deepika Hemkumar

 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party           : Served called absent  

 

                This appeal coming up before us on 28.02.2023 for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of the appellant and 1^st respondent and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both parties.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both parties, for filing written arguments of the appellant and 1^st respondent 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 01.00 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