Haryana

Panchkula

CC/103/2020

JARNAIL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC FIRST BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

M.P SINGH AND RAMESH GOYAL.

15 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                              

Consumer Complaint No.	:	103 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	26.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	15.03.2021

 

Jarnail Singh son of Shri Gian Singh, resident of Shop No. 6, Shiva Shopping Complex, Main Bazar, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.                                                                                                                    ……...Complainant

          Versus

1.  IDFC First Bank, Baltana Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager/Officer in charge/responsible person.

2.   IDFC First Bank, Zonal Office at SCO No. 169-170, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

3.   IDFC First Bank, SCO 395, Ground Floor, Urban Estate, Sector 20, Panchkula.

                          ….….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:         Shri Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                     Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

Present:        Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the Complainant.

                     Ms. Aishwarya, Advocate, Counsel for OPs No. 1 to 3.

 

          Today the case is fixed for amicable settlement. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant, by making a separate statement, tendered copy of Compromise Deed as Mark A vide which the Complainant had entered into compromise with the OPs, and stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, so, he does not want to pursue with the present complaint and, therefore, he wants to withdraw the same on behalf of the Complainant.

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3, by making a separate statement, stated that she has gone through the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant, and agrees with the same, and submitted that the OPs No.1 to 3 shall abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Compromise Deed i.e. Mark A, hence, requested to dismiss the present complaint as compromise has been made between the parties. 

          Heard. In view of the statements made by Ld. Counsels for the Complainant as well as OPs No.1 to 3, the present Complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn being compromised. It is made clear that both the parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions contained in the  Compromise Deed i.e. Mark A, and in case, OPs No.1 to 3 fail to abide by the said compromise deed, then the Complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Sections 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 to 3.

                     A copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of costs and File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

 

Dt.                (Dr.Sushma Garg)           (Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini)                (Satpal)

15.03.2021     Member                          Member                                    President