Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/62/2014

Kumaran KudilmFlat Owners Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.Karthik Prakash - Opp.Party(s)

R.Purusothaman

31 Oct 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.62/2014

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Kumaran Kudil Flat Owners’ Association,

Represented by its Secretary,

Mr. K.S. Ramachandran,

G-1, ‘B’ Block,

Plot Nos.A & B,

‘SIPPOY LINE’,

2^nd Street, Karaiyanchavadi,

Cantonment,
Poonamallee Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                            .. Complainant.

- Versus -

Mr. T. Karthick Prakash,

S/o. Mr. Thiraviyam,

Proprietor,

ES Kay Homes,

(Builders & Flat Promoters),

Plot No.12, Audco Nagar,

3^rd Main Street,

Kattupakkam,

Chennai – 600 056.                                                                           .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant               : M/s. R. Purusothaman

Counsel for the Opposite party           : M/s. J. Ravi Shankar

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 31.10.2022 for appearance of both parties, 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

 

No representation for both parties. There was no representation for both parties continuously for the past several hearings. 

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of both parties, 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 costs.

 

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT