NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3731/2009

HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. P.K. ADHESIVES MFG. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. G.S. RAIKHY

30 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3731 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 14/08/2008 in Appeal No. 3363/2001 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATIONThrough Its Managing Diretor.Chairaman SCO. 17.18.19. Sector 17-a. Chandigarh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. P.K. ADHESIVES MFG.Plot No. 2071, -72-73. MI Estate Bahadurgarh Through Its Proprietor Mr. Parveen Rana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. G.S. RAIKHY
For the Respondent :MR. ANIL HOODA

Dated : 30 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Challenge in this revision by the opposite party is to the order dated 14.8.2008 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh, dismissing appeal against the order dated 16.8.2001 of a District Forum whereby petitioner Corporation was directed to given benefit under One go scheme of Rs.70,549/- to the respondent/complainant. Respondent alleged -2- that it offered to clear the outstanding amount under One go scheme which offer was considered and accepted by the petitioner on 17/18.6.1999. Accordingly, amount of Rs.5,02,056/- was deposited by the respondent with the petitioner, still it did not give the benefit under the said scheme. Complaint based on these facts filed by the complainant, on contest, was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and appeal filed against Forum’s order by the petitioner has been dismissed by the State Commission in terms of the order under challenge. Order dated 5th November, 2009 would show that notice was issued to the respondent taking note of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that respondent had given an undertaking to withdraw the consumer complaint against petitioner if it approves its case under Extension of Currency Scheme and despite having availed of benefit under the said scheme by respondent, has not withdrawn the complaint. Relevant portion of the letter dated 14.10.2004 addressed by the respondent to the petitioner Corporation reads thus: - Í may bring to your kind notice that my case may be considered under Extension of Currency Scheme of the Corporation. I am depositing a cheque of Rs.38,000/- being 25% of the amount required as per policy. -3- I further undertake to withdraw my case from Court after approval of my case from the Corporation.’ Inviting attention to the statement of account (at pages 27-32), Shri Raikhy submits that under the said scheme the respondent has been allowed rebate of Rs.3,47,039/- by the Corporation. In view of undertaking given in letter dated 14.10.2004 the respondent has to withdraw the complaint which it has not. On the other hand, placing reliance on the letter dated 20th June, 2004 (passed on during the course of argument) Shri Hooda contends that under the threat held out in this letter the respondent was forced to pay Rs.2 Lakhs and the undertaking is not binding on the respondent. Having considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, and the said documents, I am of the view that respondent can not wriggle out the undertaking as given in letter dated 14.10.2004 and the orders passed by fora below, therefore, need be set aside and complaint dismissed. Accordingly, while allowing revision petition, aforesaid two orders are set aside and complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER