Haryana

Karnal

CC/44/2022

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finserv Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surjit Narwal

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                         Complaint No.44 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt. 25.01.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:18.07.2023

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Jiwan Dass, resident of house no.97, New Char Chaman, Karnal.

…….Complainant

                                        Vs

1. Bajaj Finserv Ltd., Regd., office Akurdi Pun411035.
2. Bajaj Finserv Ltd., 2^nd floor SCO no.225, Sector-12 near Dominoz Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                …..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……..Member

 

Present:    Shri Rakesh Kashyap, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     Today the case is fixed for consideration on the application for dismissal of complaint on behalf of the complainant.

                At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant suffered his separate statement to the effect that he does not want to pursue with the present complaint and withdraw the same on technical defect and sought permission to file afresh on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law. The time period consumed during the pendency of this complaint before this Commission may also be exempted.               

   In view of statement of complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent Commission/civil court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, he would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such before the competent Court of Law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the flle be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:18.07.2023 

                     President, 

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

  Member                Member