Haryana

StateCommission

A/43/2016

HARI OM SIKSHA SAMITI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANITA - Opp.Party(s)

V.M.HANDA

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.           43 of 2016

                                                Date of the Institution:           13.01.2016

                                                Date of Decision:-        03.11.2016

 

1.      Hari Om Siksha Samiti, Bassai, Mohindergarh through its Chairman, Akoda Road, Bassai, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh.

2.      M.D. Institute of Nursing, Akoda Road, Bassai, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh through its Principal.

3.      Smt. Savita Rao alias Savita Devi wife of Sunil Singh alias Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Babu Lal, resident of Village Bassai, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh.

4.      Sunil Singh alias Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Babu Lal, resident of Village Bassai, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh.   

……..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

Banita daughter of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of Village Norangdas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

….. Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Shri V.M. Handa, Advocate for the appellants

                   Ms. Banita-complainant in person with Shri R.S. Randhwa, Advocate

 

O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Hari Om Siksha Samiti and others-opposite parties have challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated January 16^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Suman-complainant was allowed. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“12.   Resultantly, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.57,000/- received by them vide receipts Annexures C-1 to C-6 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment and also order to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the loss of two years of the complainant causing mental agony and harassment.  The opposite parties are also liable to pay the litigation cost to the complainant, which we quantify at Rs.1500/-.  Further, the opposite parties are directed to return the original certificates to the complainant…...”

2.      On August 01^st, 2016, Sunil Singh alias Sunil Kumar on behalf of the appellants made the following statement:-

                   “I am ready to pay the principal amount, that is, Rs.57,000/-, which I had charged from the complainant on or before September 08^th, 2016 in case the complainant agrees to compromise the matter”

3.      The proposal given by the appellants has been accepted by the complainant.  The complainant has received demand draft of Rs.32,000/- (photocopy Annexure A-12) from the appellants in full and final settlement of her claim. She has further stated that the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be released in her favour.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants has also made a statement that the original documents of complainant shall be delivered to her at her address within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.

5.      In view of above, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 03.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK