Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/7/2016

Mr.S.Manimaran, S/o.D.Sambandam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd,(BSNL), Telecom (Finance Unit), and 2 Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Sentamil Selvan

06 Jun 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

 

C.C. No.07/2016

DATED, THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr. S. Manimaran,

S/o. Mr. D. Sambandam,

G1, Anbalayam,

Plot No.1, S.M.S. Nagar,

Usuppur,

Ammapettai (Post),

Chidambaram (Tk.),

Cuddalore District.                                                                               .. Complainant.

                                                       - Versus –

 

1. The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),

Telecom, (Finance Unit),

No.16, Greams Road,

Chennai – 600 006.

 

2. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),

Tamil Nadu Circle,

1^st Floor, Saibaba Colony Tele. Exchange,

Dr. Alagesan Road,

Coimbatore – 641 011.

 

3. The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),

Hospital Road,

Cuddalore –  607 001.                                                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                            : M/s. S. Senthamil Selvan

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2            : M/s. T. Ravikumar & V. Balaji

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 06.06.2022 for appearance of the complainant, for filing written argument of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

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

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant, for filing written argument of the opposite 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 12.30 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/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT