Haryana

StateCommission

CC/351/2017

DR.MANJU MODI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.SUD

16 Oct 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.351 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 01.06.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 16.10.2019

 

1.      Dr. Manju Modi wife of Dr. Rajeev Kumar Modi, resident of House No.814, Sector-16, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109.

 

2.      Dr. Rajeev Kumar Modi son of Shri Rattan Lal Gupta, resident of House No.814, Sector-16, Panchkula (Haryana)-134109.

 

 

…..Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

1.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, through its Managing Director, Registered & Corporate Office, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, through Shri Yudhvir Arora, Senior Manager (CRM & Marketing), Site Office Parsvnath Royale, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                    

 

                                     

Present:-    Complainants in person with their counsel Shri Nitin Sood.

                   Shri Satpal Dhamija, proxy counsel for Shri Ashwani Talwar, counsel for the opposite parties.

                                      

 

                                                O R D E R

 

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

 

The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the allegations that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties. Accordingly, prayer made for refund of `52,07,580/- being deposited amount towards flat in question along with interest @ 15% per annum, `1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony, torture and physical harassment etc. due to the acts and conduct of the opposite parties, `1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in services and `55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Upon notice, the opposite parties put in appearance. However, their defence stood struck off as despite availing ample opportunities for filing the written version they failed to file the written version. Subsequent to the same, the complaint is fixed for recording evidence of the complainants.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainants states that the parties have amicably settled the matter and in this regard Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared, which has been signed by the complainants on the one hand and the opposite parties on the other.

4.      Learned counsel for the opposite parties states that pursuant to the settlement deed, the principal amount along with interest minus TDS, the total amount of `83,60,822/- is sought to be paid to the complainants by way of 18 cheques, 17 of which are post dated cheques.

5.      The complainants, who are present in person, have accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement and also the 18 cheques for a total amount of `83,60,822/-. Accordingly, they state that they do not want to pursue the complaint any further, instead, they want to withdraw the same.

6.      In view of the above, the complaint is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn.

7.      The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

 

 

Announced 16.10.2019

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.