Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/162/2018

Mr.C. Raghu, S/o Chandrasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vignesh Constructions and Real Estate, Rep by its Proprietor N. Shanmugam and 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Rajesh Kumar

31 Oct 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

                     

C.C. No.162/2018

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Mr. C. Raghu,

S/o. Mr. Chandrasekar,

No.4, Vinayagar Street,

J.B. Nagar,

Annanur,

Chennai – 600 109.                                                                         .. Complainant.

                                                    

- Versus -

1. M/s. Vignesh Constructions & Real Estate,

Represented by its Proprietor

Mr. N. Shanmugam,

Kapul Kandigai Street,

Railway Station Road,

Manavur – 631 210.

 

2. Mr. N. Shanmugam,

Proprietor,  

M/s. Vignesh Constructions & Real Estate,                                                                   Kapul Kandigai Street,

Railway Station Road,

Manavur – 631 210.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

First Floor, No.1, Siva Vis Street,

Opp. to LIC Office II,

Tiruvallur,

Chennai – 602 001.

 

4. Mrs. Gnanm,

W/o. Mr. R. Kabali,

No.29, Rangasamy Street,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011.                                                                             .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant               : M/s. R. Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party      : M/s. G. Pramila

Opposite parties 1, 2 & 4                   : Exparte

 

This consumer complaint coming up before us on 31.10.2022 for appearance of the complainant, for filing written argument of both parties and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

 

Docket Order

 

3^rd Opposite party present.  No representation for the complainant. There was no representation for the complainant continuously for the past several hearings. 

Today, this matter is posted for appearance of the complainant, for filing written arguments of both parties  and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal.  

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 01.00 P.M. still, there was no representation for the complainant.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the consumer complaint pending is of no use as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed for default.   No costs.

 

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT