Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Parkash Pruthi vs The Greater Mohali Area Development ... on 9 April, 2018

                                                    2nd Additional Bench


   PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
           DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

                  Consumer Complaint No.1040 of 2017
                                      Date of Institution : 30.11.2017
                                      Date of Decision : 09.04.2018

Parkash Pruthi (w/o Sant Lal Pruthi) d/o Sh.Hardyal Ram Batra, (age 78 years)

R/o 14/1, First Floor, Near B Block, Gurudwara Kalkaji, New delhi-19

                                                                .....Complainant
                                     Versus

   1.

The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S. Nagar, District Mohali, through the Chief Administrator.

2. The Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, Mohali.

.....Opposite parties Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:-

Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member Sh. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Ms.Eshjyot Walia, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh.Anuj Kohli, Advocate GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER Sh.Anuj Kohli, Advocate, has filed short reply alongwith his power of attorney on behalf of the opposite parties, vide which it has been stated that Rs.14,57,057/- on account of interest has been paid to the complainant. Counsel for the complainant has made the statement to withdraw this complaint, subject to supply of the calculation sheet and that if there will be any discrepancy the complainant will have a right to get the amount from the opposite parties. In CC No.1040 of 2017 2 case, within the period of three months, the additional amount due, if any, not paid then she be given the liberty to revive the said complaint.
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the complainant, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the complainant that in case the claim is not satisfied as settled, he will have a right to get the complaint revived by moving an application in the Registry.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER April 09, 2018 parmod