Haryana

StateCommission

A/687/2017

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKRAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

27 May 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.687 of  2017

Date of the Institution:06.06.2017

Date of Decision: 27.05.2019

 

1.      Omaxe Ltd., 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Chairman & Managing Director.

2.      Omaxe Ltd., North Avenue, Sector-15, Bahadurgarh through its Incharge/Manager.

 

          Appellants No.1 & 2 through its authorized signatory namely Sh. Deepanjit Singh son of Sh. Satwant Singh, Omaxe Ltd., 7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

                                                                            .….Appellants

Versus

1.      Vikram Singh son of Sh. Ajit Singh,

2.      Mrs. Preeti Singh wife of Sh. Vikram Singh,

 

          Both residents of House No.142, Sector-3, Rohtak.

                                                .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Manjinder Singh, proxy counsel for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondents alongwith Sh. Vikram Singh, respondent No.1 in person.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.                Sh. Vikram Singh, respondent No.1(spouse of respondent No.2)/complainant has made a statement that he may be permitted to withdraw the complaint bearing No.201 of 2016 titled as “Vikram Singh & Anr. Vs. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr.” filed before learned District Forum, Jhajjar with liberty to file afresh before appropriate authority.

 

2.                In view of the statement made by respondent No.1(spouse of respondent No.2)/complainant impugned dated 02.05.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar is set-aside and complaint No.201 of 2016 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh complaint before appropriate authority. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the respondent/complainant may seek exemption/condonation of the time spent before the State Commission and District Fora.

3.                Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

May 27th, 2019

Mrs. Manjula Member Addl. Bench

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

R.K.