Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/252/2017

The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board - Complainant(s)

Versus

Major IN.Sundaresan - Opp.Party(s)

V.Yuvakumar-Applt.,

28 Apr 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

 

F.A. No.252/2017

(Against the Order dt.14.03.2011 made in C.C. No.392/2007 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

The Executive Engineer &

Administrative Officer,

Besant Nagar Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Lattice Bridge Road,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                                                                           .. Appellant / Opposite party. 

-Versus-

Major IN. Sundaresan,

F 12 Defence Officers’ Enclave,

No.1, Chamier’s Road,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.     

 

At present residing at:-

Flat No.1, Vasanth Apartments,

No.10/14, Sadasivam Street,

Gopalapuram,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                                                                                       .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Appellant / Opposite party                        : Party in person

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant   : M/s. S. Pushpakaran

          This appeal coming up before us on 28.04.2022 for appearance of both and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

Docket Order

 

No representation for both. 

When the matter came up on 06.09.2021 for hearing, it was informed by the Counsel for the respondent that the Counsel for the appellant had expired.  Hence, the Registry was directed to send notice to the complainant for his appearance and for arguments.  The notice was also served to the appellant.  Inspite of receipt of notice, the appellant has not chosen to appear before this Commission till date.

This appeal is posted today for appearance of both 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 12.30 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 the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

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

                    

               

               Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                   R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT