Haryana

StateCommission

CC/634/2017

KAVINEET TIWANA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

M3M INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S. RANDHAWA

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 634 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 13.10.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 10.09.2019

 

1.      Ms. Kavineet Tiwana daughter of Sh. Harbinder Pal Singh Tiwana, resident of 1001, New Greenwood CGHS, Plot No.6, Sector 52, Gurgaon.

 

2.      Harpal Singh Heer son of Shri Jagtar Singh Heer, resident of 4/288, Kelanagar Crossing Jeerangarh Road, Aligarh-2020001.

 

…..Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

1.      M3M India Limited, Paras Twin Towers, Tower B, 6^th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Sehgal Estate, Authorized Partners of M3M India Limited, Paras Twin Towers, Tower B, 6^th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative.

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

                                     

Present:-    Shri Inderdeep Singh, counsel for the complainants-applicants.

                   Shri Rohit Rana, proxy counsel for Shri Kunal Dawar, counsel for the opposite parties.

                                      

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J. (ORAL)

 

The complainants have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein they have sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.18,85,029/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the respective dates of payment besides Rs.5,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and loss of income and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.      Consequent upon filing of written version by the opposite parties, the complaint was fixed for recording evidence of the complainants. 

3.      Now a miscellaneous application No.256 of 2019 has been preferred by the complainants wherein they have sought permission to withdraw the complaint as the parties have amicably settled the matter.

4.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties confirms the factum of settlement having been arrived at between the parties and accordingly, he has no objection if the complainants are allowed to withdraw the complaint.

5.      In view of the above, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the complaint instituted by the complainants is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn.

 

         

         

Announced 10.09.2019

(Manjula)   Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

    U.K.