Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/27/2018

R.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skylink Construction, Rep by its managing partner sathish kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Dr.R.Ramachandran

29 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.27/2018

                         DATED THE 29^TH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

 

 

Lt. Col. R. Srinivasan,

S/o. Mr. N. Rajagopal,

Administrative Office in NCC Group Headquarter,

Coimbatore.

Having his residence at:-

No.12/2B, Thirumal Nagar,

Kalangal Road,

Sulur,

Coimbatore – 641 402.                                                                             .. Complainant.

 

-Versus-

1. Skylink Constructions Company,

Represented by its Managing Partner Mr. Satish Kumar,

No.524, MRP Complex,

IDBI Bank Upstairs,

VeerapandiPirivu,

Palladam Road,

Tirupur – 641 605.

 

2. Mr. Venkatesan,

Partner of Skylink Construction Company,

No.2/3H, Kerni Amman Nagar,

Ayyampalayam,

Pollikkalipalayam (Po.),

Tirupur – 641 605.                                                                           .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s. Dr. Ramachandran

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2   : M/s. Senthil Kumar

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 29.09.2021 for appearance of both, for filing proof affidavit of complainant or for dismissal and this Commission made the following order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket order

 

            No representation for complainant. Today, this matter is posted for appearance of both and for filing proof affidavit of complainant or for dismissal.   When this matter was called at 10.30 A.M., there was no representation for complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 Noon, the complainant was again not present, proof affidavit was also not filed.  Since the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case hence, the complaint is dismissed for default.   No cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT