Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/82/2019

D.Mohan,S/o Late B.Dharmalingam,D.No.36,FourthFloor,Kshiptha Apartment,Saravanampatti,Thudialur Road,Coimbatore-641 029. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,M/s.India Bulls Home Loans,R.O.Sathya Tower No.11&12,Block No.13,R.S.Puram,Diwan Bahadur - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.Kumanan

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                             Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 82/2019

                                                            DATED THIS THE  31^st DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

D.Mohan,

S/o Late B.Dharmalingam,

D.No.36, Fourth Floor,

Kshiptha Apartment,

Saravanampatti,

Thudialur road,

Coimbatore – 641 029                                                 ..Complainant

                                                Vs

1. The Manager,

M/s India Bulls Home Loans,

R.O.Sathya tower, No.11 & 12,

Block No.13, R.S.Puram,

Diwan Bahadur road,

Coimbatore – 641 002

 

2. M/s Indiabulls Home Loans,

Rep.by its Manager,

R.O.Sathya tower No.11 & 12,

Block No.13, R.S.Puram,

Diwan Bahadur road,

Coimbatore – 641 002                                                 ..Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Complainant                       : M/s P.Kumanan

Counsel for the opposite parties                  : M/s T.Saikrishnan

 

          This complaint is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :                                  

                                                      Docket order

 

        No representation for Complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for filing Proof affidavit of complainant (as Last chance) or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M,  the complainant was not present  hence,  passed over and  called again at 12.30 noon, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.   Hence the complaint is dismissed for default for non-filing of proof affidavit. No order as to cost.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT