Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/160/2015

Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd., Branch Managar - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. Boopalan - Opp.Party(s)

T. Srinivasa Raghavan

28 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

 

F.A. No.160/2015

(Against the Order dt.15.07.2014 made in C.C. No.37/2013 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Erode)

                         DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

 

1. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

No.81/82, 1^st Floor, Opp. to Karur Vysya Bank,

Perundurai Road,

Near Kumalankuttai Bus Stop,

Erode.

 

2. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

New No.149, 1^st Floor, Kodambakkam High Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Appellants / Opposite parties.

-Versus-

V. Boopalan,

S/o. Mr. K. Velusamy,

Karumapurathanur,

Mothaiyanur Post,

Sankari Taluk,

Salem District.                                                            .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite parties   : M/s. T. Srinivasa Raghavan Associates

Respondent / Complainant                                 Served called absent

 

          This appeal coming up before us on 28.02.2022 for appearance of appellant, for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 

 

Docket Order

 

No representation for both.  This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant, for filing written arguments of appellant 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 01.15 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 parties are not interested in prosecuting the case.

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

 

               

                   Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                        

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                            R.SUBBIAH                        

           MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT