Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/89/2013

S.S. GURU, PROPRIETOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE S.T. COURIER SERVICE, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

P. VINOTH KUMAR

29 Jun 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                                        Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                       ::      MEMBER

 

 CC. No. 89/2013

      DATED THIS THE 29^TH  DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Mr.S.S.Guru,

Proprietor,

M/s Akash Jari Enterprises,

No.61, Sathiyam Nagar,

1^st Floor,

Kumbakonam – 621 001                                                   ..Complainant

                                               Vs

1.The Managing Director,

The S.T.Courier Service,

199, Hariyan street,

C.Pallavaram,

Chennai – 600 043     

 

2. The Manager,

The S.T.Courier Service,

79, 1^st floor, R.Krishnanagar main road,

Kallukkudi,

Trichy.

 

3. The Manager,

S.T.courier service,

23, Kaliyamman koil street, (old bus stand)

Kumbakonam – 612 001                             

 

4. The Manager,

S.T.courier service,

2, APJ complex,

Kamaraj Nagar,

Near Abirami Hotel,

Kanchipuram HO,

Kanchipuram – 631 501                                          ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for the complainant              : M/s E.Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for the ops 1 to 4                 : M/s M.Jayakumar

 

          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 present. This complaint is posted today for appearance of complainant and for arguments in list 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. The complaint is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

    Sd/-                                                                                                             Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                       R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT