Haryana

Karnal

CC/284/2019

M/s Maruti Rice Mill - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. Operation U.H.B.V.N.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Chouhan

02 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.284 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt. 23.05.2019

                                                          Date of Decision: 02.02.2022

 

M/s Maruti Rice Mill, Bajida Road Karnal through its proprietor Nirmala Rani wife of Shri Prikshit Kumar.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     S.D.O. Operation UHBVN Ltd.Sub Urban Karnal, Sector-12, Karnal.

2.     Chairman, UHBVNL, Haryana, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before      Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

Present:  Shri R.K. Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Yashbir Singh, counsel for OPs.

 

                Today the case was fixed for arguments.

                At the stage, learned counsel for complainant suffered his separate statement to the effect that he wants to withdraw the present complaint with permission to file the same before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the matter.

                In view of statement of learned counsel for complainant, the present complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would be at liberty to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action before the court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.    

Announced
Dated: 02.02.2022

 

                                                                                            President,     

District Consumer Disputes     

 Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                         Member                         Member