Haryana

Karnal

CC/521/2022

Naveen - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhdev Sharma

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                                    Complaint No.521 of 2022

                                                                     Date of instt.06.09.2022

                                                                     Date of Decision:27.02.2024

 

Naveen son of Sh. Sher Singh, resident of House No.1314, Gali No.4, Basant Vihra, Karnal.

                                                                                      …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Shakti Colony, Mall road, Tehsil & District Karnal, through its Branch Manager.
2. Transunion CIBIL Limited, One World Center, 19^th floor, Tower 2-A &2-B. 84, Jupiter Textile Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before       Sh. Jaswant Singh………President.   

                   Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

                   Dr. Suman Singh………….Member.

 

Present: Sh. Sukhdev Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

               Sh. Pardeep Gupta, counsel for the OP-1.

               Sh. Sandeep Rana, counsel for the OP-2.

                             

       Today the case is fixed for remaining arguments, if any, and order.

                 Learned counsel for the complainant has suffered his separate statement to effect that he does not want to pursue with the present complaint further and withdraws the same on technical ground and sought permission to file the fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law. The time period consumed during the pendency of this complaint before this Commission may also be exempted.            

   In view of statement of complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent Commission/civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, he would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such before the competent Court of Law. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the flle be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:27.02.2024.                

                        President,      

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Vineet Kaushik)   (Dr. Suman Singh)

   Member                   Member