Haryana

StateCommission

CC/318/2019

RAHUL PRATAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHREE VARDHMAN TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER SINGH RANA

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/318/2019
( Date of Filing : 20 Sep 2019 )
 
1. RAHUL PRATAP SINGH
H.NO. 18, SECTOR 8 II URBAN ESTATE, DISTT. KARNAL.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S SHREE VARDHMAN TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.
301, 3RD FLOOR, INDRAPRAKASH 21, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  S . P . Sood PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 06 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

C.C.No.318 of 2019                                                                                  (09)

 

Present:-    None for the complainant.

                   Mr. Manoj Lakhotia, counsel, counsel for opposite parties.

                                                                                               

                   As per order dated 03.04.2023 contained in letter No.644, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

                   Again, none has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. It is the 4th consecutive occasion when nobody has appeared before this Commission to represent the complainant. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate has appeared and filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite parties and alongwith this he has also placed on record the photocopy of Settlement Agreement  arrived at between complainant on one hand and opposite parties on the other way back on 31st August, 2021and if we look into the contents of the settlement, complainant has bound himself to withdraw the present complaint in view of the fact that opposite parties have already satisfied him in all respects. Perhaps, the above-said development itself suggest the precise reason as to why neither the complainant is represented by his counsel nor he himself has bothered to appear before this Commission even to appraise the factum of this settlement.  In view of this development, especially the way when settlement has already taken place and added thereto when no one is here before this Commission to represent the complainant, therefore, this Commission is constrained to dismiss the present complaint for want of prosecution. Case called several times since morning. Waited sufficiently. It is already 1:30 P.M. No further wait is justified. Hence, the present complaint is hereby stands dismissed in default for want of prosecution. File be consigned to records.  

 

April, 06th, 2023                                                                       S.P. Sood                                                                                                                                                      Judicial Member

                                                                                                           Addl. Bench  

J.Y.

 
 
[ S . P . Sood]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.