Present: 1. Sri.P.K.Sasi, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
18th day of February 2017
CC 534/15 filed on 11/09/2015
Complainant : Joy P.A., S/o Antony, Poovathingal House,
Pallath Lane, Cheroor P.O., Thrissur.
(By Adv.R.N. Unni, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties: 1) M/s PACL India Limited, Rep. by Managing Director,
4th Floor, Grand Mall, Sankarayya Road Junction,
West Fort, Poothole P.O., Thrissur – 680 004.
2) Valsa W/o Jose, Mangalam House, P.O. RV Puram,
Adiyara, Thrissur.
(By Adv. I.R. Aravindhakshan, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sheena V.V., Member :
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a disabled person with poor eye sight and he makes his living by milking cows for different houses in his locality with the help of his wife. The complainant has joined the deposit scheme on 31/12/09 and getting plot by paying installments of Rs.360/- per month. The bond was issued by 1st opposite party as per the scheme the complainant has to pay Rs.360/- per month for 5 1/2 years and at the end of the period he would either get Rs.23,760/- plus interest and total amount comes to Rs.35,000/- or a plot would be allotted to him for this amount and registration number U145578976 was given to him and a bond was also issued to him as an assurance of the scheme. After the maturity of the scheme, ie, on 30.06.15, the complainant approached the opposite parties, but there was no amount or plot allotted as offered. When the complainant approached the company, the 2nd opposite party took the original bond from complainant promising that it is for getting the money from the office and the 2nd opposite party gave the receipt for bond received and the opposite parties never returned with neither the original bond or the money that is due to the complainant. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 07/08/15 and it was acknowledged but no reply was given. Hence this complaint.
2) On being notice of the complaint, the opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. In the version they stated that the 1st opposite party, ie, PACL LTD is neither the financial establishment nor the non-banking financial company. Company is neither collecting/accepting deposit from the public by promising lucrative high rate of interest nor issuing any bind of policy, premium, maturity etc. It is started that PACL LTD is real estate company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land and plot across the country and allot the land to customer. Again, the opposite party stated in the version that the complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, since after perusal of complaint there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties did not receive any deposit from the complaint, it only received advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Opposite parties never promised to pay any money to the complainant what we promised is plot of land and if he is not keen to take his plot in that case we will arrange for sale of his plot and he will receive only estimated party reliable value. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has freeze the bank accounts and property/title deeds of the PACL LTD incase crime No.R-CBDI/2014/E/004. The complainant is well aware that due to this reason opposite parties cannot refunding deposited amount, so deficiency of service and cause of action not arises against these opposite parties. Hence dismiss this complaint.
3) The points to be considered that :-
a) Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in
service or not.
b) If so what reliefs and costs.
4) When the case is posted for evidence, the complainant filed proof affidavit and four documents produced, which are marked as Ext. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of bond issued by 1st opposite party to complainant, Ext. P2 is the receipt of original bond received by 1st opposite party, Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext. P4 is the postal acknowledgement card.
5) From 27/06/16, there is no representation on the part of opposite party and no evidence adduced by them. So, we have considered, the complaint as favour of complainant, with reading the documents and affidavit. In the version, the opposite parties had never denied their scheme and the complainant is a member of that scheme. So, considering the facts and documents of complainant, we could find the deficiency of service committed by opposite parties. However, the 1st opposite party company is a private limited company, hence the company is liable to compensate to the complainant.
In the result, we allow this complaint and 1st opposite party company is directed to return Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of maturity ie, 30/06/15, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of February 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
M.P.Chandrakumar Sheena.V.V. P.K.Sasi, Member Member President.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 copy of bond
Ext. P2 receipt of original bond
Ext. P3 copy of lawyer notice
Ext. P4 postal acknowledgement card.
Id/-
Member
