Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/324/2017

S.Jayaraman , - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager,Public grievances cell & 2 ors - Opp.Party(s)

S.Jayaram-applt

28 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

 

F.A. No.324/2017

 

(Against the Order dt.31.08.2017 made in C.C. No.85/2016 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (North))

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

S. Jayaraman,

S/o. Shanmuga Nadar,

No.6/125, 3^rd Street,

P.S. Samy Colony,

R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 2.                                                                .. Appellant / Complainant

-Versus-

 

1. The Manager,

Public Grievances Cell,

Southern Railway,

Central Railway Station,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. The Manager,

Passenger Care Centre,

Southern Railway,

Central Railway Station,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway,

Central Railway Station,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.                                                   .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

 

Appellant / Complainant                                 : Party in person

Counsel for Respondents / Opposite parties : M/s. K. Muthamil Raja

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 28.11.2022 for appearance of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both parties.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the appellant in person was not present.  Hence, passed over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant in person.  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