ADITYCHHABRA filed a consumer case on 19 May 2023 against HL RESIDENCY LTD. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/505/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 29 May 2023.
Haryana
StateCommission
CC/505/2018
ADITYCHHABRA - Complainant(s)
Versus
HL RESIDENCY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)
GAURAV G.S.CHAUHAN
19 May 2023
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 04.09.2018
Date of final hearing: 19.05.2023
Date of Pronouncement: 19.05.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.505 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Adity Chhabra D/o Late Shri Amrish Chhabra R/o H.No.1258, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana through her General Power of Attorney Mrs. Muskan Dawar age about 40 years W/o sh. Balvinder Dawar R/o #B-1, 1113/2, Bindraban Street, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
….Complainant
Versus
HL Residency Pvt. Ltd. site office: HL City, Sector 37, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Director/Authorized Signatory.
HL Residency Pvt. Ltd. registered office at B-12, Vishrantika Apartment, Plot No.5A, Sector 3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
Managing Director, HL Residency Pvt. Ltd. site office:HL City, Sector 37, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
Ajit Jangra, Dealer Om Shanti Properties, Power House Chowk, Near Tikona Park, Rohtak.
….Opposite parties
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President
mrs. manjula, member
Present: Shri Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Mithun, proxy counsel for Shri Abhishek Jindal, counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.
Presence of opposite party No.4 already declared not essential as counsel for the complainant did not want to pursue the complaint against him.
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
ORDER
The instant complaint has been preferred by complainant Adity Chhabra under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein she is praying for issuance of directions to the opposite parties:
to refund the amount of Rs.25,71,722.64/- along with interest @18%;
to pay interest on the awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of causing financial risk, hardship, mental agony, harassment, emotional disturbance cause to the complainant due to actions/omissions;
to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses;
Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have put in appearance. At the same time, the State Commission had declared the presence of opposite party No.4 not essential as the complainant did not want to pursue the complaint against him. It was followed by opposite parties No.1 to 3 filing the written version. Subsequently, both the parties recorded their respective evidence.
At the outset, counsel for the complainant has stated that during the pendency of the complaint, the parties have amicably settled the matter and in these circumstances, the complainant may be permitted to withdraw the complaint. He also states that pursuant to the settlement, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the complainant by way of demand drafts. Photocopies of the same have been produced, which are taken on record.
After hearing counsel for the complainant, the State Commission finds that it would be just and proper to allow the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
In view of the above, complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN)
PRESIDENT
(MANJULA)
MEMBER
Pronounced On:19.05.2023.
MS
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.