Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

134/2014

M/s.Nidhi Ispat Vdyoy,Rep by its Proprietor, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,State bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Arvind Kumar

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.07.2014

                                                                               Order pronounced on:  19.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.:           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 19^th   DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

                                          C.C.NO.134/2014

 

  M/s. Nidhi Ispat Udyog,

  Rep by its Proprietor,

  Ashok Kumar Indoria,

  Having business at No.113,

  Mettu Street,

  Sathangadu, Chennai – 600 019.

                                                                                                  ..... Complainant

 

                                     ..Vs..

1. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Tondiarpet Branch,

•  

Chennai – 600 081.

 

2. The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank Of India,

SMECCC, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

....Opposite parties

 

 

Date of complaint                                      :11.07.2014

Counsel for complainant                 :M/s.M.Arvind Kumar

Counsel for  Opposite Parties          : M/s. C.P.R. Kamarraj

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

No representation for Complainant. Counsel for Opposite Parties present. The Complainant has not filed proof affidavit till 12.45 p.m today inspite of posted today as last chance and previous hearing on 13.07.2016 also as last chance. Even before 13.07.2016 hearing, to file proof affidavit 15 hearings time given.  Inspite of sufficient opportunity given the Complainant to file his proof affidavit has not chosen to file the same establishes that the Complainant has no interest in prosecuting the Complaint. Hence the Complaint is dismissed for default for non filing of proof affidavit. No costs.

 

                 Pronounced by us on this 19^th   day of August 2016.

 

      -sd-                                                                                 -sd-     

MEMBER – II                                                              PRESIDENT