Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/41/2018

G.Mani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M.Udaya Bhanu

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.41/2018

                         DATED THE 28^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

1. G. Mani,

S/o. Mr. Govindasamy,

 

2. Tmt. Pushpa,

W/o. Mr. G. Mani,

 

3. M. Manoj Kumar,

S/o. Mr. G. Mani,

 

4. M. Rekha,

D/o. Mr. G. Mani,

 

5. M. Hari Krishnan,

S/o. Mr. G. Mani,

 

All are residing at:

No.1/56, B Pillayar Koil Street,

Annangudi Village,

Katpadi Village,

Vellore District.                                                                              .. Complainants.

-Versus-

 

1. The Central Bank of India,

Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

Mr. Chander Mukhi,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

The Central Bank of India,

Latteri Branch,

Vellore,

Vellore District.

 

3. The Regional Manager,

The Central Bank of India,

No.48/49, Monteith Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 068.

 

4. The Banking Ombudsman,

C/o. Reserve Bank of India,

Port Glasies,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                                        .. Opposite Parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant              : M/s. Udhaya Banu

Opposite parties 1 to 4                       : Ex-parte

 

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

 

Docket order

 

Today the matter came  up for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.   

Earlier the matter appeared in the list on several dates for filing of written arguments and for oral arguments in list, viz. 09.09.2021, 30.11.2021, 28.01.2022, 22.02.2022. 

 On 30.11.2021, the complainant appeared for the last time and requested for an adjournment as he was not ready for advancing arguments on that day.  Subsequently when the matter was adjourned and called by video conferencing on 28.01.2022, there was no representation for the complainant.  Further it was adjourned to 22.02.2022 for arguments in List, still as there was no representation it was adjourned to 28.02.2022 finally in list for arguments or for dismissal.  On 28.02.2022 , there was no representation for the complainant when the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. and passed over twice at 11.45 A.M. and at 01.15 P.M.  Already the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set ex-parte and 4^th opposite party was served and called absent.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that though sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant for appearance, he was continuously absent and hence was not interested in prosecuting the complainant. 

Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for default for non-prosecution.  No order as to cost.

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT