Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

198/2008

p.Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunil's Marketing (India) Pvt Ltd and 4 others - Opp.Party(s)

A.Narayanan

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   02.06.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   28.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.  S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                      : PRESIDENT   

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I   

          DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.198/2008

TUESDAY THIS  28^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

 

P. Jayaraman, Proprietor,

Sree Visalam Designs,

Old No.64, New No.128,

Jammi Buildings,

II Floor,

Royapettah High Road,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.                          ..Complainant   

                                             ..Vs..

1.  Sunil’s Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep.  by its Director, Mr.Sunil,

2. VEC Marketing,

Authorized dealer to Sunil’s Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

3. Mr.Sunil, Director, Sunil’s Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

4. Mr.Alwyn, Director, Sunil’s Marketing (India) Pvt Ltd.,

5. Mrs.Sumathi, Director,

Sunil’s Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

 

Address of the pposite parties 1 to 5 are

B-12, Vidyodaya Apartments,

No.54, Habibullah Road,

T.Nagar,   Chennai 600 017.                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant                    :  M/s. A.Narayanan  

For the opposite parties 1,2,4 & 5 :  M/s.  S.V.Subramanian & another  

For the opposite party-3               :  Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN,

 Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay cost of the digital printing machine of Rs.6,00,000/-  and also to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and to pay cost of the complaint.

       

Proof affidavit of both not filed.   Both called absent,  No other representation.  It is seen from the adjudication that it is pending from 4.6.2015 to file proof affidavit of the complainant and to mark the documents on the side of the complainant.  In spite of  sufficient time is given, the complainant neither appeared nor to file the proof affidavit as his evidence in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint against the opposite parties.  Therefore it is clearly reveals the fact that the disinterest of the complainant in the further progress of the case continuously by preferring there is no justifiable to prolong further.   

In the light of the  above facts and circumstances that there is no evidence adduced on the side of the complainant this compliant is deserved for dismissal.

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed for default.  No cost.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.