Haryana

Karnal

CC/96/2021

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chauhan Trading Company - Opp.Party(s)

Dheeraj Sachdeva

25 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                         Complaint No.96 of 2021

                                                          Date of instt. 15.02.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:25.10.2023

 

Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Ram Chander R/o Ward no.8, Dodwa Colony Taraori, District Karnal.

…….Complainant

                                        Vs

1. M/s Chauhan Trading Company Shop no.155, New Grain Market Taraori, District Karnal, through its Authorized Person/Proprietor (Seller).
2. Chaudhary Exports # village Shekhupura Banger Post Office Sirsi Tehsil Indri, District Karnal, through its Authorized Person/Manager.

                                                                            …..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh………President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……… Member.

               

Present:    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Parveen Karan, counsel for the OP-1.

                     Shri Sanjeev Vohra, counsel for the OP-2.

 

                     Today the case is fixed for remaining arguments, if any and order.

                At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant suffered his separate statement to the effect that he does not want to pursue with the present complaint and withdraw the same on technical defect and sought permission to file afresh on the same cause of action before the competent Court of law. The time period consumed during the pendency of this complaint before this Commission may also be exempted.               

   In view of statement of complainant, the present complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 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. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the flle be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:25.10.2023     

                                                       

                 President, 

District Consumer Disputes                                                    

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

  (Vineet Kaushik)  

                       Member