Dilbag Singh complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to produce the entire record of payments before the Hon’ble Forum, to pay the entire amount alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. to him from the date of expiry of schemes till payment. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties made tall claims and showed company’s profile and working and floated various Deposit Schemes in the shape of Recurring and fixed deposit through booklets and pamphlets through which they claimed higher rate of interest and timely returns. Allured by the same, he purchased the plot scheme of the company with the assurance to refund the money alongwith interest and profit at expiry/maturity of the scheme. The opposite parties issued policy no.U238077115 with date of expiry 19.9.2014 and U238076387 with date of expiry 10.9.2014 for Rs.50,000/- each. He deposited lump sum amount of each policy at Gurdaspur office. The final amount alongwith interests and profits comes to Rs.92.900/- for policy No. U238077115 and Rs.92,900/- for policy no.U238076387 total amount Rs.1,85,800/- which becomes payable by opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. He deposited all the original documents of the policies as per requirements on the respective dates of expiry of the scheme. He requested many times to make payment of the abovesaid amount by paying many visits at its office, but they are using delaying tactics and harassing  him without any reason causing mental agony, tension and have indulged in unfair trade practice and are negligent in its service. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the Company PACL LTD is neither the Financial Establishment nor the Non Banking Financial Company and the Company is not collecting/accepting deposit from public by promising lucrative high rate of interest. It is further submitted that PACL LTD is Real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land across the Country and allot the land to its customer; the Company did not receive any deposit from the complainant it only received advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties for sale and development of land/plot; the complaint is based on false and baseless allegation against the opposite party. The complainant has intentionally and willfully not disclosed the material facts and complaint is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice; there is an arbitration clause of the agreement, according to which the complaint should have invoked arbitration proceedings for the redressal of his grievances in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. Hence this Hon’ble Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that PACL Ltd is Real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land across the Country and allot the land to its customer.  Complainant entered into an agreements bearing Registration No.U238077115 and U 238076387 with the opposite party for purchase of land units and has deposited Rs.50,000/- each which was excepted value of land. Opposite party does not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received from complainant is an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot and the same is received as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. It was further submitted that the opposite party has approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is fixed for hearing on 05/11/2015 for defreezing of bank accounts. In view of the above, it was submitted that the opposite party is helpless to make refund/payments to its Customer and as such delay in payment of the complainant is neither intentional nor deliberately but the same is for the reasons stated herein above which are beyond the control of opposite party. The complainant is fully aware that due to this reason opposite party is not refunding the deposited amount. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other document Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Paramjit Singh Sidhu, Branch Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2  and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the both of the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. We are certainly not convinced with the OP Co.’s objection pleading that the inclusion of ‘arbitration’ clause in the mutually entered upon policy agreement has ousted the jurisdiction of the consumer forum; and thus, we overrule the same on the strength of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act that provides the said ‘relief’ as an alternate remedy in addition to the existing ones as already available under the continuing statute laws. Further, the prime plea for non-payment of the complainant’s overdue funds also does not hold water since the complainant has not been a party before any statutory authority ordering for the ‘freeze’ of the OP funds in the Bank and all the more when it stands proved on records that outward payments are in ‘progress’ but in a selective mode. Moreover, it has not been the case of the OP Co. that all its ‘funds’ stand ‘restrained’ and no other ‘sources’ of funds are within its reach. We feel that even with the freeze of accounts, the OP cannot escape from their liability and same still stands.   It also gets proved on record that the OP Co. has been thus indulging in ‘unfair’ trade practices coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ and that holds it liable to an adverse award under the Act.

7.       In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to pay the full maturity amount to the complainant in all his accounts (that has fallen due for payment) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

8.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                       President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

Sept. 29, 2015.                                                                Member.

*MK*