Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/147/2013

HAFIZUR RAHIMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

G. MOHAMMED ASEEF

26 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.147/2013

 

(Against the Order dt.15.03.2013 made in C.C. No.21/2009 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Villupuram.)

DATED THE 26^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

 

A. Hafizur Rahiman,

S/o. Mr. M. Abdul Salam (Late),

No.18, Dharam Chand Nagar,

Kushal Chand School Backside,

Tindivanam – 604 001,

Villupuram District.                                                                                                                             .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Divisional Railway Manager’s Office,

Chennai Division,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. Tindivanam Railway Station Master,

Tindivanam Railway Station,

Tindivanam – 604 001.                                                                                                                .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant              : M/s. G. Mohammed Aseef

Counsel for Respondents / Opposite parties  : M/s. K. Kumaran

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 26.04.2022 for appearance 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.   Respondents 1 & 2 present.   There was no representation for appellant for the past several hearings.  This appeal is posted today for appearance 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 01.00 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