Haryana

Karnal

CC/319/2022

Birbal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikram Rana

13 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                           Complaint No.319 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt. 06.06.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 13.11.2024

 

Birbal age 47 years son of Shri Tek Chand, resident of house no.33, ward no.18, VPO Barsat, tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Aadhar no.370105319790. Mobile no.88168 17158.

                                                                                ……Complainant

                                                        Versus

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. registered office Sadan C1, District Center Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Managing Director.
2. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Sahib Gurudwara Chowk SCO/861-862 main Road Ropar Punjab-140001 through its Manager.
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. ground floor SCO no.19-20, Sector 12 Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

……Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

Mrs.Neeru Agarwal………...Member

                Mrs. Sarvjeet Kaur…………Member.

                       

Present:  Shri Vijay Prajapati, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Naveen Kheterpal, counsel for the OPs.

                           

        Today the case is fixed for arguments. Fresh power of attorney on behalf of complainant alongwith application with permission to file the fresh complaint after withdraw of the present complaint on technical grounds.

 At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has suffered his separate statement to effect that due to technical reason, he does not want to pursue the present complaint and withdraws the same with permission to file the fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law.

      In view of the above statement, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law, if so desired. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent Commission/civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, he would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such before the competent Court of Law.  Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated: 13.11.2024.  

                                                                                                President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                 (Neeru Agarwal)                  (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                     Member                            Member