DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.310/2007

Professor (Col) Rajan Anand Malik

S/o (Col) Shri A.N.A. Malik

R/o C-95, Defence Colony,

New Delhi-110024                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO)

2.       M/s A-One Motors Pvt. Ltd.

represented by:

Sh. P. C. Sood

The General Manager

A-19, Mohan Co-Op. Indl. Estate

 Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

3.       M/s Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank

          Plc (India) represented by:-

          Sh. Jaspal Bindra, CEO

          Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank

          Plc. (India) 23-25, M. G. Road

Fort, Mumbai-400001

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 15.11.02                                                            Date of Order        : 05.11.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

We have gone through the file very carefully. The complaint was infact instituted in the year 2002 and transferred to this Forum on 02.03.07.

With a view to decide the complaint we do not think it necessary to discuss the facts in detail.  Suffice it to say that the Complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.4,96,523.25 paise (rounded to Rs.4,96,523/-) as on 31.10.2002 for  the reasons detailed in the complaint.

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 14.07.14. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the OPs has taken us through the order sheet dated 15.12.10 recorded by our predecessors which reads as follows:

“15-12-2010

Pt. Complainant in person.

Pt. Mr. Suchita Sharma, Advocate for OP 4

Complainant and O.P. counsel served statement of account to each other regarding their payments. During the course of arguments it is transpired that the amounts in question with interest has been paid by the O.P. to the complainant and it is admitted by the complainant also. Now, there is a dispute only with regard to compensation  for mental harassment and litigation expenses between the parties plus action against the O.P. No.3 that means A-1 Motors who were ex-parte

          Put up for final arguments on 07-02-2011.

Sd/-                                                            Sd/-”

As pointed out hereinabove, the only prayer of the Complainant is to issue directions to the OPs to return Rs.4,96,523/-.  He has not sought any further relief with regard to compensation for mental harassment or litigation expenses.

In view of the fact that the Complainant has already been paid the said amount alongwith interest we do not think that any further action is required to be taken against the OP No.2.  Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled to any further relief.

In view of the above discussion, the complaint is disposed off accordingly.

           Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 05.11.16.