Haryana

Karnal

CC/159/2021

Ms. Rosy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Housing And Construction Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Babita Rani

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.159 of 2021

                                                          Date of instt. 05.03.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:24.03.2023

 

Rosy wife of Sh. Baldev Raj resident of house no.207, Bank colony, Sector-8, Karnal at present house no.731, TC first floor, CHD city Karnal.

…….Complainant

                                        Vs

1. Ansal Housing and construction Ltd., GT road Karnal through its Managing Director.
2. Gaurav Singh Pundir, Manager, Ansal Housing and construction Ltd., GR road Karnal.

                                                                …..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

                Smt. Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……..Member

 

Present:    Ms. Babita Rani, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP-1.

                     OP-2 exparte vide order dated 07.07.2021.

 

                     Today the case is fixed for remaining arguments and order.

                 At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant suffered her separate statement to the effect that she does not want to pursue the present complaint and withdraws the same on technical ground and sought permission to file afresh on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law.                  

         In view of statement of learned counsel for the complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent Commission/civil court for redressal of her grievance, if so advised and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, she would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such before the competent Court of Law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the flle be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:24.03.2023                                                          

                   President, 

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

  Member                Member