Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/110/2018

R.Azhagiri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chennai port Trust, Employees Co Operative Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.Ranganadhan

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

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

 

F. A. No.110/2018

 

(Against the Order dt.09.03.2018 made in C.C. No.173/2015 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

DATED THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

R. Azhagiri,

S/o. Mr. Ramasethu,

No.13, Sathya Krishna Nagar,

Vennar Bank,

Thanjavur – 613 003.                                                               .. Appellant / Complainant.

 

-Versus-

1. The Chennai Port Trust,

Employee’s Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Represented by its CSR / Managing Director,

Old No.37 B, New No.110, Sembudoss Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2. R. Narsimhan,

No.17, Brindavan Avenue,

Sri Nagar Colony,

Thirumullaivoyal,

Chennai – 600 062.                                                   .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for  Appellant / Complainant         : M/s. R.S. Ranganathan

1^st Respondent / 1^st Opposite party            : Served called absent

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd  Opposite party         : Party in person

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 30.03.2022 for appearance of appellant, for filing written argument of 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.  2^nd Respondent in person present.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of the appellant, for filing written argument of 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 12.00 Noon. 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/-                                            Sd/-

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                S. KARUPPIAH                               R.SUBBIAH

            MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                           PRESIDENT