Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/31/2012

S. RAJENDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SAI BHARATH AND ILAN

29 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                      BEFORE    Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH           ::      PRESIDENT                       

                                        Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 31/2012

          DATED THIS THE 29^th  DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

S.Rajendran,

No. 10/1035, J.J.Nagar East,

Mogappair,

Chennai – 600 037                                                     ..Complainant

 

                                              Vs

 

1. M/s TATA Motors Ltd,

5^th Floor, One Forbes,

Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Kala Ghoda,

Fort, Mumbai 400 023                        

 

2. M/s Concorde Motors Limited,

42, Velachery Road,

Guindy, Chennai 600 032  

 

3. M/s Pokma Automobile Services (P) Ltd,

Authorized Service Centre of Tata Motors, 

F-12 First Main Road, Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058             

 

4. AR.A.S.P.V.P.V,

Authorised Service Centre of Tata Motors,

58 A, T.P.K Road,

Madurai – 625 004.

 

5. Sri Lakshmi Motors, (Trichy),

Authorized Service Centre of Tata Motors,

6/1 Karur Bye pass Road,

Chinthamani,

Trichy – 620 002                                                         ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant                             : M/s Sai Bharath

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                      : M/s Shivakumar & Suresh

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                     : M/s Annalakshmi

Opposite parties 3 &  4                                       : Served called absent

5^th opposite party                                                 : Exparte

 

          This complaint is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                      Docket order

          No representation for the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for arguments in list or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the complainant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.45 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

   Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                  R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                PRESIDENT