Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/235/2017

S.M.A.Mohammed Saleem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Authorized Signatory & anr - Opp.Party(s)

M.I.Mohamed Abusuguman

28 Jun 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.235/2017

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

S.M.A. Mohammed Saleem,

S/o. Late S.M. Ahmed,

Partner,

M/s. Victory Steel Corporation,

No.10/82, Having division of

Sembudoss Street,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                                             .. Complainant.                                                   

- Versus –

 

1. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

Having its office at:

Plot No.A-1/1, M.I.D.C.,

Five Star Industrial Area,

Shendra,

Aurangabad – 431 201,

Maharastra State.

 

2. M/s. Gurudev Motors,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

Authorized Dealers for

Skoda Auto India,

No.559, Anna Salai,

Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.                                                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. M.I. Mohamed Abusuguman

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party     : M/s. AR. Ramanathan

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite party    : M/s. BFS Legal

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.06.2023 for appearance of complainant, for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

Docket Order

 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 present. No representation for the complainant.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant, for filing written arguments of both parties 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, this consumer complaint is dismissed for default.  No costs.

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                  Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT