Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/125/2013

K.M. VIDHAYASAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

S. PADMA

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.125/2013

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr. K. M. Vidhyasagar,

S/o. Mr. M.K. Mathivathanan,

Old No.15, New No.9/1, East Jones Road,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.                                                                            .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. Mr. Sandeep Das,

Managing Director,

Standard Chartered Bank,

C 38/39, G Block Bandra Krula Complex,

Bandra East,

Mumbai,

Maharastra – 400 001.

 

2. Ms. Rajashree Nambiar,

General Manager,

Retail Banking Product

Personal & Preferred Banking Segment,

South Asia Standard Chartered Bank,

No.19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

3. The Principal Nodal Officer,

Standard Chartered Bank,

Customer Care Unit,

No.19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

4. The Head,

Service Quality India and South Asia

Standard Chartered Bank,

No.19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

5. Shaha Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

No.102, Wellington Business Park -1,

Marol,

Andheri (East),

Mumbai – 400 059.                                                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                   : M/s. S. Padma

Counsel for the opposite parties             : M/s. RSP Partners

 

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

 

Docket Order

 

Opposite parties 1 to 4 were present and ready for arguments.  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