Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/62/2015

M. Kalimuthu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sare Jubilee Shelters, Directors - Opp.Party(s)

N. Thayagarajan

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.54/2015

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

 

V. Karthikeyan,

S/o. Mr. K. Vasudevan,

No.104, Sai Niketan,

No.6, Lock Street,

Kottur Garden,

Chennai – 600 085.                                                                                                                                           .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

M/s. SARE JUBILEE SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,

Represented by its Directors,

Now having office at:

No.1-9, 2^nd Floor, Sintron Square,

Dr. V.S.I. Estate,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                                                                                                                  .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant     : M/s. Rohini Ravikumar

Counsel for the opposite party  : M/s. P.S. Rathinamani

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.04.2022 for appearance of the complainant, for filing written argument of opposite party 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. Opposite party present.  The Counsel for the opposite party represented that he is ready for arguments.  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 argument of the opposite party 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 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