Haryana

Karnal

CC/33/2018

Reena Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Singh

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                       Complaint no.33 of 2018

                                                           Date of instt.: 08.02.2018                                                             Date of Decision 09.07.2019

 

1. Reena Aggarwal wife of Shri Gian Chand Aggarwal resident of ward no.3, Safidon District Jind.

2. Pooja Garg wife of Shri Nihar Garg resident of Ward no.3, Safidon District Jind.

                …… Complainants.                            Versus

1. Ansal Housing & Constructions Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, 15 UGE, Indra Parkash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001.

2. Ansal Town, Ansal Town, Sector-36, near Namastey Chowk, Karnal.

             ………Opposite parties.

                Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh…….President

                 Sh.Vineet Kaushik…….Member.

                  Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Present:    Shri Gurjant Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties.

 

                 Learned counsel of complainant made a statement for withdrawal of the complaint on account of technical defect and seeking permission to file afresh complaint in competent court/commission on the same cause of action as per provisions of law and prayed for exemption of the time consumed before this Forum and also requested to return the original documents.

            In view of statement of learned counsel of complainant, the present complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would be at liberty to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action before the court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Forum while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. All the original documents has been exhibited by the complainant hence, same cannot be returned to the complainant. However, complainant is at liberty to get certified copies of the original documents. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:09.07.2019                                                                         

                                                                          President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                              Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                                 Member                Member