Haryana

Karnal

CC/473/2020

Rajnish Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran - Opp.Party(s)

V.K. Kapoor

25 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.473 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt. 30.10.2020

                                                          Date of Decision:25.05.2022

 

1. Rajnish Gupta son of Sh. Parkash Gupta.
2. Smt. Anju Gupta wife of Sh. Rajnish Gupta.
3. Smt. Neeraj Singla wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Singla.
4. Shri Ankit Singla son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Singla, all residents of House No.31-A, Chaman Garden, Karnal, Distt. Karnal.

…….Complainants

                                        Versus

1. Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran through its Estate Officer, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.
2. Chief Administrator Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran Panchkula.

…..Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

        Smt. Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……..Member.

 

Present:  Complainant in person alongwith Sh. V.K.Kapoor Adv.

                   Sh. Rishi Ram Sharma, counsel for the OPs .

 

                   Today the case was fixed for remaining arguments and order.

    At this stage, complainant suffered his separate statement to effect that due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission, the complainant wants to withdraw the present complaint, with a liberty to file it before the appropriate Commission in view of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The time period consumed, during the pendency of this complaint before this Commission may kindly be exempted.     

   In view of statement of the complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant is at liberty to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action before the competent Court of Law, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs 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 Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:25.05.2022             

                          President, 

District Consumer Disputes                                                      

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

  Member                Member