View 3110 Cases Against School
G.Keerthipriya, filed a consumer case on 20 Jul 2016 against The Principal, Sweetha School of Engineering,Saveetha University, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 153/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Aug 2016.
Complaint presented on: 09.05.2014
Order pronounced on: 20.07.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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
WEDNESDAY THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2016
C.C.NO.153 /2014
Ms.G.Keerthi Priya,
No.15-2467, Johns Garden,
Palamaner Road, Chittor – 517 002.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
1.The Principal,
Saveetha School of Engineering,
Saveetha University,
Saveetha Nagar, Thandalam,
Chennai – 602 105.
2.The Manager,
Edulive Infra India Pvt. Ltd.,
Shanti Colony, Annanagar,
Chennai – 40.
3. The Managing Director,
Edulive Infra India Pvt. Ltd.,
The CPBM Office,
Edulive Infra India Pvt.Ltd.,
A4, Crystal Row House,
Behind Kapil Complex,
Near Balewadi Phata Baner Road,
Pune 411 045.
4.The Managing Director,
Shailesh J.Mehta School of Management,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai – 400 076.
5.The Deen,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai – 400 076.
…..Opposite parties
Date of complaint : 31.07.2014
Counsel for complainant : Mr.A.Palaniappan
Counsel for 1st Opposite Party : T.Ravi Kumar
Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party : Ex- parte
Counsel for 3rd Opposite Party : Dismissed
Counsel for 4th & 5th Opposite Party : V.S.Ushrani
O R D E R
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.
Counsel for Opposite Parties present. Opposite Parties already filed proof affidavit. Complainant not filed proof affidavit for the past 11 hearings. Even today 12th hearing the case posted as last chance for filling proof affidavit of Complainant, he has not filed the same till 2.55 p.m. Complainant also called absent till then. In spite of sufficient opportunity given to the Complainant to file her proof affidavit and she has not filed the same, shows that she has no interest in prosecuting the Complaint. Hence no purpose would be served even if the case is adjourned and therefore we have decided to dismiss the Complaint for want of evidence of the Complainant and accordingly this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Pronounced by us on this 20th day of July 2016.
-sd- -sd-
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.