Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/119/2018

A. Kalimuthu S/o. M. Arumugasamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tashildar, Revenue Office - Opp.Party(s)

M. G. Balasubramanian

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

 

F.A. No.119/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.11.04.2018 made in SR No.09/2018 in C.C. No.23/2017 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Ariyalur)

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

A. Kalimuthu,

S/o. Mr. M. Arumugam,

Gandhi Nagar,

Thirumanur – 621 715,

Ariyalur Taluk & District. 

 

Represented by its Agent,

Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian,

President,

Tamil Nadu Consumer and Environment Protection Council,

Thirumanur – 621 715.                                                     .. Appellant / Complainant.

 

-Versus-

The Revenue Tasildhar,

Revenue Tasildhar Office,

Ariyalur – 621 704.                                                      .. Respondent  / Opposite party.  

 

 

Appellant / Complainant                              : Party in person

Counsel for Respondent  / Opposite party  : M/s. K. Kumaran

 

               This appeal is coming up before us on 28.06.2023 for appearance of the appellant in person and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

Docket Order

 

         Respondent present and ready for arguments. No representation for the appellant / party in person.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of the appellant / party in person and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the appellant / party in person was not present.   Hence, passed over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant / party in person.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed for default.    No costs.

 

 

               

                Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                         

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                    R.SUBBIAH                       

             MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT