Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/608/2012

The Special Officer, The Coimbatore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. Jayalakshmi & anr. - Opp.Party(s)

R. Shanmugam,

31 Mar 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                         Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH                                       ::  JUDICIAL  MEMBER

                                         Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::   MEMBER

 

FA. No. 608/2012

(Against the order in C.C. No.378/2003  on the file of

District Consumer Forum, Coimbatore)

 

                                                             DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF MARCH 2022

 

The Special Officer,

The Coimbatore District

Central co-operative Bank Ltd,

No.80, State Bank Road,

Coimbatore -18                                           ..Appellant /2^nd opposite party

 

                                           Vs

1.R.Jayalakshmi,

w/o sadayappan,

PSGR Nagar, vedapatti,

Coimbatore – 641 007                                ..1^st Respondent/complainant

 

2. K.1764 Vedapatti Primary

Agricultural Co-operative Bank,

Rep.by its Special officer,

Vedapatti post,

Coimbatore – 641 007                                    ..2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party

 

Counsel for the Appellant /2^nd opposite party    : M/s R.Shanmugam

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/complainant           : M/s S.Kadarkarai

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/1^st opposite party   : M/s Thiyagarajan

 

          This appeal is coming on before us for appearance of both and for arguments in list or for dismissal, we made the following order in open court :-

                                                         Docket order

          No representation for both. This appeal is posted today for appearance of both and for arguments in list or for dismissal.  When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the appellant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, then also the appellant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is no use as the appellant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.       

Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL       S.KARUPPIAH                                           R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                 JUDL.MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT