Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/148/2017

N.Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master, Mandarakuppam & 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

C.A.Dass

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                             PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

F.A. No.148/2017

(Against the Order dt.08.10.2015 made in C.C. No.19/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Cuddalore.)

                         DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

N. Saravanan,

S/o. (Late) K. Natesan,

New Bharani Silks,

No.37, Main Road,

Mandarakuppam,

Neyveli – 607 802.                                                           .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

1. The Post Master,

Mandarakuppam,

Neyveli – 607 802.

 

2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Cuddalore Division,

Cuddalore – 607 001.

 

3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Chennai Central Division,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

4. The Chief Post Master General,

TN Circle,

Anna Road,

Chennai  - 600 002.                                             .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Appellant / Complainant                                 : M/s. C.A. Dass

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 / Opposite parties 1 to 4 : M/s. R. Kumar

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 28.02.2022 for appearance of appellant, for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for appellant.  Respondent Nos.1 to 4  present.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant, for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the Appellant was not present. Hence, passed over and  called again at 01.15 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant.  Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as parties are not interested in prosecuting the case.

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

 

               

                   Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                            R.SUBBIAH                        

           MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT