Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/209/2021

Dr.Suseela Levan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sales Bazar - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHAR LANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695010
 
Complaint Case No. CC/209/2021
( Date of Filing : 09 Jul 2021 )
 
1. Dr.Suseela Levan
house no -51,vivekanadha nagar ,pangode,thirumala,trivandrum
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sales Bazar
301 royal palm,near soni complex,mumbai,maharastra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Aug 2022
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 209/2021 Filed on 09/07/2021

ORDER DATED 30/08/2022

 

Complainant

:

Dr.Suseela Levan, Daughter of Kumara Panicker, House No.51, Vivekananda Nagar, Pangode, Thirumala.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 006.

                (Party in person)

Opposite party

:

Sales Bazar, Wem Technology Pvt., Ltd., 301 Royal Palm, Near Soni Complex, Malad West, Opp.west end Bldg., Opp.Chincholi Bunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 064.

ORDER

 

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter thecommission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The notice issued to the opposite party returned with endorsement ‘addressee left’.  Since 29/10/2021 this case was adjourned for taking steps against the opposite party by the complainant.  As the complainant has not taken any steps against the opposite party, and as the complainant was continuously absent, notice was issued to the complainant to appear before this Commission today to further proceed with this complaint.  The notice issued to the complainant was served.  When the case came up for consideration, complainant was absent and there was no representation.  In the above circumstances we find that the complainant is not interested to further proceed with this complaint.

In the result complaint is dismissed for default.  There will be no order as to cost.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30th   day of August,  2022.

 

Sd/-

P.V. JAYARAJAN

:

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR

 

:

 

      MEMBER

Sd/-

VIJU  V.R.

:

MEMBER

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.P.V.JAYARAJAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Preetha .G .Nair]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Viju V.R]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.