Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/19/2018

S.Kirubakaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer, TNEB Pallipattu - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Suresh

12 Apr 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

 

F.A. No.19/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.30.10.2015 made in E.A. No.05/2015 in C.C. No.59/2013 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Thiruvallur)

DATED THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

S. Kirubakaran,

S/o. Mr. S.S. Subramanian,

No.33, Theradi Street,

Pallipattu – 631 207,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                                                            .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. The Assistant Engineer (O & M),

TNEB,

Pallipattu – 631 207.                                                                     

Thiruvallur District.      

 

2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (O & M),

TNEB,

Athimanjeripet,

Thiruvallur District.      

 

3. The Executive Engineer,

TNEB,

Thiruttani Division,

Thiruvallur District.

 

4. The Superintending Engineer,

TNEB,

Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,

Kancheepuram.                                                                                                                 .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant     : M/s. A.L. Ramamoorthy

Respondents / Opposite parties            : Party in person

          This appeal coming up before us on 12.04.2022 for filing Vakalat for respondents appearance of the appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

Docket Order

 

No representation for appellant.   Respondents 1 to 4 in person present.  This appeal is posted today for filing Vakalat for respondents 1 to 4, for appearance of the appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Appellant was not present.  Hence, passed over and called again at 01.15 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant.  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, the appeal is dismissed for default.   No order as to costs.

 

               

               Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                  R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT