Haryana

StateCommission

CC/222/2018

MAJ ARVIND RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AMARBIR DHALIWAL

21 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.        222 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution:                    09.04.2018

                                                Date of Decision:                     21.01.2020

 

Major Arvind Rana son of Shri Raj Kumar Rana, resident of Pushya Bhawan, VPO Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh-176057.

 

…Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, Pin-160009.

 

2.      Registered Office: DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City, Ph.3, NH-8, Gurgaon (Haryana), 122002.

 

…Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

 

3.      Subash Chander son of Shri Goverdhan Lal Anand, resident of J-31, First Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.

 

…Proforma Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     None for the complainant.

                   Ms. Sukhmani, proxy counsel for Shri Shashank Sharma, counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2.

                   None for opposite party No.3 despite service.

 

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

          The complaint has been called twice but none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

2.      Since the filing of the complaint learned counsel for the complainant has not put in appearance. It is another thing that in his absence notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. It was for that reason that on the last date i.e. 26.08.2019, the State Commission had made it clear that in the event of there being no representation on behalf of the complainant, it might be constrained to dismiss the complaint in default for want of prosecution.

3.      As none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant ever since filing of the complaint and also on the last date, the State Commission is left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint in default for want of prosecution.

4.      Ordered accordingly.

 

 

 

Announced 21.01.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.