Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/45/2016

Dr.Manju Sree - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sree Daksh Property Developers (India) Private Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.S.Vamsidhar

10 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

 

C.C. No.45/2016

                         DATED THE 10^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

Dr. Manju Sree,

W/o. Mr. Devanand Mahadeva,

Formerly resident in:

No.2, Moor Croft, Leads,

LS16/8 NB, U.K. Presently residing in Dubai,

Represented by her Power of Attorney,

Agent Mr. R. Dharmalingam,

S/o. Mr. Ramasamy Pillai,

Flat No.T 5, A Block,

Thangam Avenue,

Amma Mandapam Road,

Srirangam – 620 006.                                                                                                                  .. Complainant.

-Versus-

 

M/s. Sree Daksh Property Developers (India) Private Limited,

Having its Registered Office at:-

No.1, Gandhi Layout,

First Floor, Sri Veeras Tower,

Maruthamalai Main Road,

Coimbatore – 641 046.  

Represented by its Director

Mr. N. Ganesan,

S/o. Late V. Natarajan,

Door No.18, Sasthri Nagar,

Karuppa Gounder Thottam,

Sulivan Street,

Coimbatore – 641 001.                                                                                                                .. Opposite Party.

 

Complainant                                  : Party in person

Counsel for the opposite party      : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

 

          This consumer complaint coming up before us on 10.02.2022 for appropriate Orders and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                      

Docket order

Opposite party present.  No representation for the complainant.

When the matter came up on 28.10.2021, the Counsel for the complainant reported ‘No instructions’ from the party.  Hence, Fresh Notice ordered to be sent through Court to the complainant for his appearance.  The cover sent to the complainant returned as “No such person in the address”.

Today, when the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the complainant did not appear in person nor there was any representation on his behalf.  Hence, the matter was passed over and again called at 12.20 P.M. Still, there was no representation for the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant was not interested in pursuing the case.   Hence, this complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution.   No costs.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                                       R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                                          PRESIDENT