Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/248/2018

P.Ravi, (Consultant), Sarvamangala Lab (Near Taluk Office), Kanchipuram - Complainant(s)

Versus

THe Manager, M/s. Micro Enterprises, M.P.M. Street, Chennai-39 and another - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. G. Vijayaraghavan

27 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

         BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH                  ::      PRESIDENT                       

                           Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                ::      MEMBER

 

FA. No. 248/2018

(Against the order in C.C. No.75/2014, dated 5.10.2016, on the file of

District Consumer Commission, Chengalpattu)

 

                                                            DATED THIS THE 27^th   DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

P.Ravi (Consultant),

Sarvamangala Lab,

No.81-A, Kamarajar street,

Near Taluk Office, Kanchipuram                                ..Appellant/complainant

 

                                                     Vs

1. The Manager,

M/s Micro Enterprises,

Old No. 58, New No.7, Kamarajar street,

8^th street, (M.P.M. street)

Chennai 600 039                                        ..1^st Respondent/ 1^st opposite party

 

2. The Manager, S.S.Agencies,

No.36, Vandavasi Road,

Shop No. 9, Rajesh Complex Housing Board,  

Kanchipuram 631 502                                  ..2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant                          : M/s Vinothan

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/ 1^st opposite party         : M/s C.Shankar

2^nd Respondent/2^nd opposite party                               : Served called absent

 

          This appeal came up for hearing before us, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                 Order

          No representation for appellant. R1 present. Ready. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for arguments in list or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the appellant was not present hence, passed over and called again at  12.30 noon, then also the appellant has not appeared. 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 cost.

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT