Delhi

StateCommission

CC/13/256

VIVEK RAMACHANDRAM & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 02.03.2015

Complaint Case No.-256/2013

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1.  Vivek Ramachandran

2.  Shobha Ramachandran

 

     Both residents of:

     16, Arunachalam Road,

     Kotnrpuram, Chennai -600085

                                                                                  …..Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Supertech

    1114, Hemkunt Chambers,

    89, Nehru Place,

    New Delhi-110019

 

2. Shristhi Welfare Society

    E-87, IIIrd Floor, Paschimi Marg,

    Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057

                                                                               …..Opposite Parties

CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             There is a joint application of the parties wherein it is stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties in terms of MOU dated 24.01.2015.

2.              Ld. counsel for the complainants states that the complainant-1 is out of India and complainant-2 is the mother of complainant-1 who is residing at Madras and due to old age she is not personally present.

3.              Ld. counsel for the complainants states that the MOU dated 24.01.2015 was signed in his presence and Ld. counsel identifies the signature of Ms. Shobha Ramanchandran i.e. complainant-2 on MOU Exhibit C-1. It is stated that Exhibit C1 is signed by her at point A of each page for herself as well as on behalf of her son Sh. Vivek Ramachandran i.e. complainant-1. Sh. Praveen Kumar, AR of the OP being the power of attorney is also present who admits having signed on MOU Exhibit C-1 at point B on each page.

4.               It is stated that the parties have amicably settled the matter in terms of Exhibit C-1. It is prayed that the consent decree be passed in the present complaint case in terms of MOU Exhibit C-1.

5.                In view of the statement of the parties the prayer made in the application is allowed and the present complaint stands allowed in terms of compromise Exhibit-C1.

 6.              Ld. counsel for the OP states that in compliance of MOU Exhibit C1, the cheque no. 204418 dated 23.01.2015 for the amount of 855,188.00/- has already been handed over to the complainants.

7.                 Ld. counsel for the complainants has confirmed the above position. The remaining 3 cheques the details of which have been mentioned in para-1 of MOU Exhibit C1 are also handed over today to the Ld. counsel for the complainants.         

                 Photocopy copies of the cheques are placed on record. 

                File be consigned to record room.               

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member