Haryana

StateCommission

CC/531/2018

SUPRIYA HORA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.RANDHAWA

08 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.09.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing:08.11.2024

                                                          Date of Pronouncement:08.11.2024

 

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.531 OF 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1. Supriya Hora daughter of Shri Bhim Sain Chandha, wife of Shri Kinshuk Hora resident of 120, Charak Sadan, Vikas Puri, Near E Block Market, New Delhi-110018.
2. Kinshuk Hora son of Shri J.M. Hora resident of 120, Charak Sadan, Vikas Puri, Near E Block Market, New Delhi-110018.

 

 

                                      ….Complainants

Versus

Adel Landmarks Ltd. (formerly known as Era Landmarks Ltd.), Branch/site Office, Sector 103, Cosmo City, Gurgaon, through its director Sumit Bharana.

Alternate Address: B-24, Sector 3, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

 

 

 

 

….Opposite Party

         

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President

                   MR. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.                                                                     ­­                                        

 

Present:     Shri Inderdeep Singh, counsel for the complainants.

                            

 

 

 

 

PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

 

ORDER

 

 

1. On 30.01.2023, fresh notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post as well as by way of dasti process. Notice was however not received back served or otherwise whereas dasti notice was not collected by the complainants.
2. On 20.11.2023 when notice issued to the opposite party was not received back, fresh notice was again issued to the opposite party through registered post as well as by way of dasti process. Position remains the same as of date as counsel for the complainants has not been successful in serving the opposite party.
3. Counsel for the complainants states that despite best efforts, the complainants could not serve the opposite party and as such, the matter may be adjourn sine die with liberty to the complainants to get it revived as and when the opposite party is served.
4. In view of the above, the complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.
5. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
6. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
7. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

 

(T.P.S. MANN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                     

(S.P. SOOD)

JUDICIAL MEMBER  

 

Pronounced On: 08.11.2024

MS