IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                        PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. S. KARUPPIAH                                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                          MEMBER

C.C. No.44/2012

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Ananya Mukherjee,

D/o. Mr. Ajoy Mukherjee,

Gupta Colony,

Nabapally, Barasat,

Kolkata,

West Bengal – 700 126.                                                                            .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

1. The Chair person & Managing Trustee,

St. Peters Institute of Higher Education & Research,

No.1895, 5^th street, EWS Vasantham Colony,

18^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

2. The Registrar,

St. Peters University,

College Road,

Avadi,

Chennai – 600 054.

3. Mr. Nibir Saha,

Director,

St. Peters Group of Institutions,

(Presently-School of Engineering & Technology),

EN-59, Salt Lake City, Sector – V,

Kolkata – 700 091.                                                                            .. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                           : M/s. M. Chidhambaram

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2           : M/s. R. Natarajan

3^rd Opposite party                                           : Exparte

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 30.08.2022 for appearance of both parties, for filing written argument of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

Docket Order

No representation for both parties.   There was no representation for both parties for the past several hearings.

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of both parties and for filing written arguments of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M. there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 P.M. still, there was no representation for 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/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT