Haryana

Karnal

CC/355/2021

Naresh Kumar Dhingra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Gupta

19 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                                     Complaint No.355 of 2021

                                                                     Date of instt. 26.07.2021

                                                                     Date of Decision: 19.08.2021

Naresh Kumar Dhingra son of Shri Om Parkash Dhingra, resident of House No.175-C, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                             …….Complainant

                                                 Versus

 

1.       M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office: 115 Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2.       Sushil Ansal, Chairman and whole time Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office: 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

3.       Pranav Ansal, Vice Chairman and whole time Director, M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office: 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

4.       Dinesh Chander Gupta, Chief Executive Officer & Director, Prashant Kumar, CFO & Vice President (F&A), M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office: 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                             …..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before        Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.        

                   Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member

 

Present:     Shri V.K.Gupta, counsel for complainant.

 

                    Today the case was fixed for consideration on the application for seeking amendment in complaint.

                   Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant has already filed a complaint titled as Naresh Kumar Dhingra Versus M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd etc., under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, which has been dismissed as withdrawn from this Hon’ble Commission vide order dated 09.07.2021 on technical ground. Thereafter, complainant filed the present complaint but due to typical mistake the complainant could not type the fact regarding earlier complaint. He further argued that the said mistake is typographical mistake and the same is not intentional one and no prejudice would be caused to the OPs and prayed for allowing the application. He also placed reliance on the case laws Sawan Mall Narang Versus M/s World Pack Air Courier 1999 (1) CPC 703, Sau Sailaja and another Versus Pearless Finance Corporation 1997 (1) CPC 669, P.K.Kochu Versus C.I. Edison IA No.60 of 1999 Date of decision 3.8.1999 and New India Assurance Company Versus Sri Gopal 1996 (1) CPC 635.

                   Arguments heard. Record perused.

                   The present complaint presented before this Commission on 28.07.2021, thereafter, the complaint was adjourned for 10.08.2021 for consideration on the point of maintainability. On 10.08.2021, this Commission has pointed the fact of concealment by the complainant in the present complaint and learned counsel for complainant sought an adjournment on the ground of verifying the facts of concealment, accordingly, the case was adjourned to 13.08.2021. On 13.08.2021, the complainant has filed the present application for amendment of complaint on the ground that the mistake was typographical one.

                   The previous complaint was withdrawn by the complainant on 09.07.2021 and the present complaint has been filed on 26.07.2021 i.e. after the gap of only seventeen days. Furthermore, if the version of the complainant may be believed that due to typographical mistake the fact with regard to withdrawing of previous complaint has been left then also, the complainant should have placed on file the copy of order dated 09.07.2021 but neither the complainant has placed on file the copy of order dated 09.07.2021 nor mentioned the same in the present complaint.  

                   The fact for withdrawing the complaint was well within the knowledge of complainant as well as his counsel and despite that, they concealed the same. No doubt, the amendment of complaint can be allowed but from the conduct of the complainant it seems that he intentionally and deliberately concealed the fact of previous complaint in order to mislead this Commission. Hence, the case laws relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

                   In view the above discussion, the present application is hereby dismissed, accordingly, the present complaint also stands dismissed for concealing the true facts. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 19.08.2021                                                             President,         

District Consumer Disputes 

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)     

     Member