Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/22/2014

V. SAI MAGESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

G. KRISHNAMURTHY

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

 

                     

C.C. No.22/2014

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr. V. Sai Magesh,

S/o. Mr. Venkata Subbu Krishnan,

No.602, SJR Brooklin Apartments,

ITPL Main Road,

Kundalahalli,

Bangalore – 560 037.                                                                              .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Sahara Prime City Limited,

Sahara India Centre,

No.2, Kapoorthala Complex,

Lucknow,

Uttar Pradesh – 226 024.  

 

2. The Sales Manager,

M/s. Sahara Prime City Limited,

Sathy Road, Viswapuram,

Saravanapatti,

Coimbatore – 641 035.                                                                         .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant            : M/s. G.M. Shankar

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2  : M/s. P.R. Associates

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.08.2022 for appearance of complainant, for filing written arguments of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

 

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for the complainant. There was no representation for the complainant for the past several hearings.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant, for filing written arguments of the complainant and 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 01.00 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/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT