Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/21/2014

R. KRISHNAMOORTHY - Complainant(s)

Versus

VOLTAS HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

ANTONY JESUS

01 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN 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.21/2014

(Against the order in C.C. No.40/2012, dated:22.10.2013 on the file of

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

                                                              DATED THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

Dr. R. Krishnamoorthy

No.26/B, Anna Saalai

Therku Periya Nagar

Vriddhachalam Taluk

Cuddalore District

Dr. Krishnamoorthy

Rep. by His Power Agent Mr. S.Israel

Secretary, Tamil Nadu Rural Town Consumer

Protection Council, Cuddalore.                                                                                  .. Appellants / Complainant.

-Versus-

1. Voltas House

503, ( New No.624 ), Anna Saalai

Thenampettai,

Chennai – 600 018

 

2. Lakshmi Narayanan

Sri Lakshmi Engineering Works

Koothapakkam

Cuddalore District                                                                                                    .. Respondents/ Opposite parties.

Counsel for the Appellants /Complainant                          : M/s. Antony Jesus

Counsel for the Respondent 1 / Opposite party 1  : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

For the Respondent 2/ Opposite party 2                  : Sd called absent

          This appeal coming up before us on 1.11.2021 for appearance of both and for arguments this Commission made the following order in open court:                                                                                                

Docket order

 

            No representation for appellant. 1^st respondent present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments in list. When the matter was called at 10.30 am the complainant was not present hence, passed over and called again at 12.15 pm, then also the complainant has not appeared. Hence 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 cost.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                              R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                                  PRESIDENT