Haryana

Karnal

CC/751/2019

Manoj Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Jatin Jain

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

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

 

                                                                     Complaint No.751 of 2019

                                                                     Date of instt. 06.11.2019

                                                                     Date of Decision: 08.09.2021

 

 

Manoj Mittal son of Shri Joginder Pal Mittal, resident of H.No.918/1006, Near City Dispensary, Dhobi Mohalla, Karnal.

                                                                             …….Complainant

                                                 Versus

 

UCO Bank, near Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …..Opposite party.

 

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

 

Present:     None for complainant.

                   Shri Satish Kumar Bharadwaj, counsel for OP.

 

                    Today the case was fixed for evidence of complainant. Neither none has appeared on behalf of complainant nor evidence on behalf of complainant has been tendered. A careful perusal of the file reveals that the written version on behalf of OP has been filed on 16.03.2020 and the case was adjourned for evidence of complainant. From March 2020, till today, evidence on behalf of complainant has not been tendered. Further, in the written version it is averred by the OP that an amount of ₹2000/- as prayed for in the complaint by the complainant has already been transferred in the account of complainant. It seems that the grievances of the complainant has already been settled and he does not want to persue with the present complaint, therefore, neither he is appearing before this Commission nor tendering his evidence. 

                Hence, in view the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. However, if there are any grievances of the complainant against the OP, he is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the court of competent jurisdiction.

Announced
Dated: 08.09.2021                                                             President,         

District Consumer Disputes  

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)     

     Member