Haryana

StateCommission

CC/333/2018

SNEH LATA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.NEGI

22 Feb 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                      Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2018

                                      Date of Institution: 23.05.2018

                                      Date of Decision: 22.02.2021

 

 

Sneh Lata, aged about 48 years, wife of Shri Pradeep Kumar, resident of House No.1361, Sector 15, Sonipat.

 

…..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Vandana Building UGF, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Director.

 

2.      M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., having registered office at 10, Shaheed Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.

 

3.      M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Project Office, “Espania Royale Floors”, Kamaspur (Sonepat) through its authorized signatory.

 

4.      M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Marketing Office, Kundli (Sonepat) through its authorized signatory.

 

 

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

 

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

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri B.S. Negi, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Munish Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties.

                  

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

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

 

 

          Complaint preferred by complainant Sneh Lata under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is pending before the State Commission, wherein after filing of the written version, evidence has been recorded by the complainant and now the complaint is at the stage of recording evidence of the opposite parties.

2.      In the miscellaneous application No.14 of 2021 filed by the complainant, she has sought permission to withdraw the complaint as she does not want to pursue the complaint any further.

3.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that he has no objection, if the complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the complainant is granted permission to withdraw the complaint. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.

 

Announced 22.02.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur)  Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.