Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/94/2016

M/s. Sharon Solutions Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Uma Mahaeswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & 2 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Vijayalakshmi Rajagopal,

28 Feb 2022

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.94/2016

                         DATED THE 28^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

M/s. Sharon Solutions Ltd.,

Represented by its Director

Ms. Uma Maheswari,

Ground Floor, Jeena House,

No.520, M.K.N. Road,

Alandur,

Chennai – 600 016.                                                                              .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

Peninsula Business Park,

Tower A, 15^th Floor,

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel,

Mumbai – 400 013.

 

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

2^nd Floor, Samson Towers,

No.403, L, Pantheon Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

3. Tata AIG General Insurance Pondicherry Branch,

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

1^st Floor, No.202, 100 Feet Road,

Mudaliar Pettai,

Puducherry – 605 004.                                                                     .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant                 : M/s. Vijayalakshmi Rajagopal

Counsel for the Opposite parties 1 to 3 : M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 28.02.2022 for appearance of complainant, for filing written arguments of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket order

 

Opposite party Nos.1 to 3 present.  No representation for complainant. Today, this matter is posted for appearance of complainant, for filing written arguments of complainant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.   When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for complainant.   Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.15 P.M. still there was no representation of 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/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT