Haryana

StateCommission

CC/280/2017

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.WALIA

09 Nov 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No.     280 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution:                 05.05.2017

                                      Date of Decision:-                  09.11.2020

 

 

1.      Suresh Kumar Gupta son of late Sh. Tara Chand Gupta.

2.      Dr. Pushpender Gupta son of Suresh Kumar Gupta through his General Power of Attorney Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, both residents of House No.895, Sector 3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

…..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s EMAAR MGF Land Limited, ECE House 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

2.      EMAAR MGF Business Park, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sikandarpur Chowk, Sector 28, Gurgaon.

…….. Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Bhupinder Singh Walia, counsel for the complainants

                   Shri Ajiteshwar Singh, counsel for the opposite parties

                    

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein they have sought issuance of directions to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount of Rs.59,63,754/- alongwith reasonable interest thereon; grant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for inconvenience, mental harassment and damages suffered by the complainants due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of litigation, documentation charges, representation and repeated visits.

2.      Upon notice, opposite parties put in appearance and filed the written version. 

3.      The complainants thereafter recorded the evidence.  The opposite parties have also recorded their evidence.

4.      The complainants have filed miscellaneous application No.206 of 2020 seeking permission to withdraw the complaint as according to them, the compromise has already been effected between the parties and therefore they do not want to pursue the matter any further.  The said application is duly supported by affidavit sworn in by Suresh Kumar Gupta, one of the complainants wherein he has reiterated the factum of compromise having been effected between the parties.

5.      Notice of the application has been issued and the counsel for the opposite parties has put in appearance, who states that he has no objection if the complainants are permitted to withdraw the complaint.

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the State Commission finds that in view of the compromise effected between the parties, the complainants can be permitted to withdraw the complaint.

7.      Resultantly, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the complainants are permitted to withdraw the complaint.  Consequentially, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.  However, the parties shall abide by the terms of the settlement. 

 

 

 

 

09.11.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K