Punjab

Moga

CC/10/95

Parveen Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

City Corporation Finance(india) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sunil Chawla

13 Aug 2010

ORDER


distt.consumer mogadistrict consumer forum,moga
CONSUMER CASE NO. 10 of 95
1. Parveen BansalS/o Des Raj R/o D.M.House,D.M.Street,Mukdi Road,BaghapuranaMogaPunjab ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. City Corporation Finance(india) LtdShinghal Tower,SCO no-13,Ground Floor,Feroze Gandhi MarketLudhianaPunjab2. City Corporation Finance(India) LtdShinghal Tower,SCO-13,Ground Floor,Feroze Gandhi Market,Through its Managing DirectorLudhianaPunjab3. Sanjeev Kumar KalraCollection Officer,City Corporation Finance(India) Ltd and resident of house no 207,Mohalla Sodhian Da,Purana MogaMogaPunjab ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 13 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

13.8.2010.Present: None for the complainant.

                                   None for the Ops1 and 2

                                   Op-3 exparte.

                                    Ops no.1 and 2 not served due to want to correct address. Howewer, the complainant was directed to file the fresh correct address of Ops 1 and 2 but none appeared on behalf of the complainant, nor filed the correct address of Ops1 and 2 .In these circumstances, the case to come up after luinch, for proper order

                                                                                                                                    Member                                  member                      

 

13.8.2010. Present: None for the complainant

                      Op-3 exparte.

                      None for Ops 1 and 2

                      Case put up after lunch, None appeared on behalf of the complainant, nor filed the correct addrss of Ops 1and 2. It is 3P.M. It appeares that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting his complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed in default for want of prosecution. File be consigend to record room.

                                                                                                                          Member                                             Member

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 13.8.2010


HONORABLE Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, MemberHONORABLE Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, PRESIDING MEMBER ,