Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

R.Ranganathan, S/O.Mr.Rajan, No.18, ... vs 1.The Chairman, Tangedco Tneb, Anna ... on 12 April, 2022

  	 Daily 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.254/2019  

(Against the Order dt.28.11.2018 made in C.C. No.257/2017 on the file of D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South)) DATED THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2022   R. Ranganathan, S/o. Mr. Rajan, No.18, Subbu Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041.                                                                                                                .. Appellant / Complainant.

-Versus-

 

1. The Chairman, TANGEDCO (TNEB), Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.       

 

2. The Deputy Financial Controller, TNEB, K.K. Nagar, Chennai.

 

3. The Assistant Engineer, O & M, TNEB, Sasthri Nagar, (CEDC / South), Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.                                                                                                         .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant / Complainant     : M/s. V. Athikesavan Respondents / Opposite parties            : M/s. Hemalatha Gajapathy           This appeal coming up before us on 12.04.2022 for appearance of the appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:                                                                                                

 
Docket Order   No representation for appellant.   Respondent present.  This appeal is posted today for appearance 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 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