Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/494/2016

Neelam Kumari widow of Sh Romesh Kumar Mengi - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Anand Pandit

03 Jul 2018

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/494/2016
( Date of Filing : 21 Dec 2016 )
 
1. Neelam Kumari widow of Sh Romesh Kumar Mengi
R/o 238,PAP Colony
Jalandhar
Punjab
2. Deepak Mengi S/o Late Romesh Kumar Mengi
R/o 238,PAP Colony,Jalandhar.
3. Kanika daughter of Romesh Kumar Mengi
R/o 238,PAP Colony,Jalandhar.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. State Bank of India
Centralised Clearing Processing Centre,2nd Floor,Civil Lines,through its Chief Manager
Jalandhar
Punjab
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Natraj,M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction,Andheri (East),Mumbai 400069,through its Chairman.
3. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ist Floor,SCO 5 & 6 ,Crystal Plaza Market,Near Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences,Chhoti Baradari,Phase-1,Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Karnail Singh PRESIDENT
  Harvimal Dogra MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Sh.Anand Pandit, Advocate Counsel for the Complainant.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Sh.A.K.Arora, Advocate Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate Counsel for OP No.2 & 3
 
Dated : 03 Jul 2018
Final Order / Judgement

 

Neelam Kumari & Ors. Versus State Bank of India & Ors.

 

Present:- Sh.Anand Pandit, Advocate Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh.A.K.Arora, Advocate Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate Counsel for OP No.2 & 3

 

Statement of Sh.Anand Pandit, Advocate Counsel for the Complainant recorded that due to some technical defects in the complaint, he withdraw the present complaint. Permission may kindly be granted to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action by impleading State Bank of India, Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar Amritsar Bye Pass, Jalandhar and the period spent in persuing the present complaint may kindly be ordered to be condon for the purpose of limitation.

In view of the statement suffered by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant, the present complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. The period spent in persuing the present complaint is ordered to be condone for the purpose of limitation. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Dated (Harvimal Dogra) (Karnail Singh)

03.07.2018 Member President

 

 
 
[ Karnail Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Harvimal Dogra]
MEMBER

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.