Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/3/2015

G. Daniel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager(Service Section), Harsha Toyota, Harsha Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S. Natarajan,

08 Nov 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

 

R.P. No.03/2015

(Against the Order dt.23.06.2014 in CMP No.04/2013 in C.C. NO.14/2012 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Thiruvallur)

DATED THE 08^TH NOVEMBER 2022

 

1. Mr. G. Daniel (Deceased),

S/o. Govindhan,

 

2. Mr. D. Felix,

 

3. Mr. M.G. Sagayam,

 

4. Mr. D. Franklin,

 

2 to 4 petitioners are LRs of Deceased G. Daniel residing at:

 

No.2/118, Ambedkar Street,

Injambakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                         ... Revision Petitioners / petitioners / complainants.

 

-Versus-

 

The General Manager (Service Section),

Harsha Toyota,

Harsha Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Velappanchavadi,

Chennai – 600 077.                                   .. Respondent / Respondent / Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioners / petitioners / complainants : M/s. R. Meenakshi

Counsel for the Respondent / Respondent / Opposite party     : M/s. V. Babu

 

          This R.P. Sr. is has been filed by the Revision Petitioners / petitioners / complainants to modify the order dated:23.06.2014 passed in CMP No.04/2013 in     C.C. No.14/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Commission, Tiruvallur, coming up before us on 08.11.2022 for appearance of the revision petitioner and for enquiry or for dismissal and this Commission made the following order in open court:                                                                                                

Docket Order

 

No representation for both parties.  

This revision petition is posted today for appearance of the revision petitioner and for enquiry or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the revision petitioner was not present.   Hence, passed over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the revision petitioner.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the revision petition pending is of no use as the revision petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for default.   No order as to costs.

 

               Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT