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

S.S. Guru, Proprietor vs The S.T. Courier Service, The Managing ... on 29 June, 2022

  	 Daily Order 	   

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

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

 

                                                        Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                       ::      MEMBER 
   CC. No. 89/2013

       DATED THIS THE 29TH  DAY OF JUNE 2022   Mr.S.S.Guru, Proprietor, M/s Akash Jari Enterprises, No.61, Sathiyam Nagar, 1st Floor, Kumbakonam - 621 001                                                   ..Complainant                                                Vs

1.The Managing Director, The S.T.Courier Service, 199, Hariyan street, C.Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043       

2. The Manager, The S.T.Courier Service, 79, 1st floor, R.Krishnanagar main road, Kallukkudi, Trichy.

 

3. The Manager, S.T.courier service, 23, Kaliyamman koil street, (old bus stand) Kumbakonam - 612 001                               

4. The Manager, S.T.courier service, 2, APJ complex, Kamaraj Nagar, Near Abirami Hotel, Kanchipuram HO, Kanchipuram - 631 501                                          ..opposite parties   Counsel for the complainant              : M/s E.Gopalakrishnan Counsel for the ops 1 to 4                 : M/s M.Jayakumar             This complaint is coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court:-

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

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                       R.SUBBIAH

 

MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT