…Opposite parties
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ranjeet Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K.Sahota, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Sh. Rakesh Dabaas, , counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER:
An application on behalf of opposite party No.2 and another application on behalf of opposite party No.3 have been filed for rejecting the complaint “in-limini” being not maintainable for want of statutory requirement u/s 2(5), Section 2(7), (ii) read with Section 35(1), (a) to (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 31.05.2023
Counsel for the complainant has stated at Bar that he did not want to file the reply of the application of opposite parties Nos.2 & 3.
Heard.
As per earlier CC No. 200/2021 which was already decided by the DCDRC, Faridabad in case titled Rohit Kumar Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, on 06.12.2022. The case was decided on merit on non standard basis with the deduction of 25% of the theft vehicle. In this regard Execution No. 09/01/2023 was filed before this Commission which is pending and fixed for 24.7.2023 for awaiting order of the Hon’ble State Commission.
In execution No. 09/2023 the opposite party M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. had already paid 50% of the awarded amount which was duly received by Shri Rohit Kumar – Complainant on dated 05.04.2023 against surety and the execution petition was adjourned to 21.4.2023 and further for 29/5/2023 and further for 24.07.2023 for waiting order of Hon’ble State Commission.
After going through the contents of the application as well as CC No. 200/21 and Execution NO. 9/2003, the Commission is of the opinion, the counsel for the complainant alongwith the complainant both are playing hide and seek before this Commission and miususing the process of law. The complainant is not allowed to file the complaint before this Commission on the same cause of action in two times. In the interest of Justice, application given by opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 are allowed and the main complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In case of non compliance, opposite parties are directed to deduct an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the awarded amount of complaint No. 200 dated 06.4.2021. Copy of order dated 06.12.2022 passed by DCDRC, Faridabad in case tiled Rohit Kumar Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and photocopy of cheque No. 839381 dated 09.02.2023 amounting to Rs.68,107/- drawn on HDFC Bank 50% of the awarded amount which is kept in Ex NO. 09/2023 be also placed on the CC No. 238/3.4.2023.
Announced on: 05.06.2023. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
