Haryana

StateCommission

CC/31/2020

KALI CHARAN BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

13 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                  Date of Institution:28.01.2020

Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2023

                                                                Date of final hearing: 13.05.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No. 31of 2020

Kali CHaran Bansal S/o Shri Kudan Lal Bansal, presently R/o House No.3762, Gali No.10, Sanjay Enclave, Near Chacha Chowk, NIT Faridabad (Haryana) previously at D-138, Block-D, Jahangiripuri, Delhi.

Through Counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate

                                                          .….complainant.

Versus

1.      M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. Having its regd. Office at A-307, Ansal Chambers-I, 3, Bikaji cama Palace, New Delhi-110066.

2.      Mr. Deepak Kumar, Director M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. R/o Farm No.1, Grand Westend Green, Rajokari Village AF, Rajkari Sought, West Delhi, New Delhi 110038 DL IN

Through Counsel, Mr. Anuj Diwan, Advocate.

Opposite parties.

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.

                  

Present:-    Mr. Vaibhav Jain, counsel for the complainant.

Mr. Anuj Deewan, counsel for opposite parties.

                   

                                      O R D E R

PER   S.P. SOOD, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

                    File taken up today before the National Lok Adalat for disposing of the present complaint.

2.                Perusal of the record reveals that when this complaint was fixed on 20.05.2022, one of the official of this Commission had called up the complainant especially in view of the fact as the counsel for opposite party has stated at bar that this matter stood already settled long ago and full-fledged settlement deed has also come into existence. However, when the complainant was contacted telephonically, he informed that entire amount has been received by him, but no interest was paid by the opposite party and that is why the matter was kept pending. 

3.                I have gone through the contents of settlement deed and it evolves from the same that the entire dispute stood settled between the parties for a fixed amount which was supposed to be paid in four equally installments through bank and this part has already been duly complied with by the opposite parties earlier. This shows, perhaps the statement made by the complainant that he has not received anything towards the interest was not an authentic one, rather he made this observation simply out of greed or something like that.

4.                As such, when the entire dispute stood already settled there is no point in procuring the presence of complainant or anyone else on his behalf.In view of the said development, the present complaint stands dismissed being settled.

5.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

6.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed off accordingly in terms of this order.

7.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 13^th May, 2023

J.Y..

            S.P.Sood       

                                 Presiding Member

                                                                                                                       Lok Adalat