DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 399/2015
Date of Institution : 24.08.2015
Date of Decision : 04.02.2016
Jagraj Singh aged about 45 years son of Harbhan Singh resident of Patti Bangher, Ward No. 12, Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. PACL India Limited (Pearls), Registered Office 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004 through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.
2. PACL India Limited (Pearls), 22 Acre Scheme, Barnala Through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Chander Bansal counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal counsel for opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER):
Jagraj Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that he obtained an investment plan bearing registration No. U017048342 dated 27.8.2007 from the opposite parties which was matured on 27.11.2013. Mode of premium was single and payment plan was fixed for a period of 6 years 3 months. Under the said scheme opposite parties agreed to provide the maturity amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- to the complainant. On 28.11.2013 the complainant submitted the policy to the opposite party No. 2 and demanded the amount of Rs. 1,04,500/-, on which a receipt was issued by the opposite party No. 2 and assured the complainant to pay the maturity amount within few days. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 many times but payment was not made. So, it is a case of deficiency in service Thus, it is alleged that it is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency. So, complainant filed the present complaint for directing the opposite parties.-
1) To pay the maturity amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In their written version the opposite parties submitted that the opposite party is a body of corporate incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act and it has the status of legal entity. Further, preliminary objections have been taken on the ground of arbitration, maintainability and cause of action. It is further submitted that the complainant had applied for a piece of land vide registration No. U017048342 dated 27.8.2007 and the complainant had duly executed an agreement with the company for the same. Further, there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties.
3. It is further submitted that as per record of opposite parties complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only with the opposite parties.
4. It is further submitted that CBI has registered a case against the opposite parties company and in view of the same it has passed directions to the concerned banks for freezing of its bank accounts. The opposite party has filed a writ petition No. 705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the directions of CBI for de-freezing of bank accounts and vide order dated 6.5.2014 the Hon'ble High Court allowed de-freezing the bank accounts. However, thereafter CBI again freezed the bank accounts of opposite party company. Then company has filed an application bearing Crl. M.A. No. 12444/2014 in the aforesaid writ petition No. 705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the said application is still pending. So, the opposite party is helpless to make payment to its customers including the complainant till the disposal of the appeal by the SEBI Appellant Tribunal Bombay (SAT) and de-freezing of bank accounts by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hence it is alleged that there is no deficiency of service and cause of action.
5. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy deposit receipt Ex.C-2, copy of plan Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party has tendered affidavit of Varinder Singh CSC Incharge Barnala Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. The first objection raised by the opposite parties is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement which was executed between the parties and parties should invoke arbitration proceedings in case of any dispute under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Firstly to prove this objection the opposite parties have not produced the agreement which was executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. Secondly, the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite parties in the shape of fixed deposit for 6 years 3 months and opposite parties have promised to pay Rs. Rs. 1,04,500/- to the complainant on the completion of 6 years 3 months i.e on maturity date. Accordingly, the opposite parties provided banking services to the complainant, so the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and can file a complaint before this Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this objection does not have any force.
9. The second objection raised by the opposite parties is regarding no cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. In this regard, it is admitted case of the complainant that he deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite parties on 27.8.2007 and opposite parties promised to pay Rs. 1,04,500/- to the complainant on 27.11.2013. But the opposite parties have not paid the requisite amount to the complainant till date despite complainant deposited the required documents with the opposite parties. So, there is clear cut cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite parties.
10. Further, the opposite parties submitted in their version that a writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but they have not filed any stay order from the Hon'ble High Court or any other competent court so this Forum can proceed with the present complaint.
11. On merits it is an admitted fact that complainant had obtained an investment plan and deposited the amount with the opposite parties. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the form of fixed deposit for 6 years 3 months. It is also admitted fact that the commencement date of the policy is 27.8.2007 and maturity date of the policy is 27.11.2013. It is proved by the complainant from Ex.C-3 copy of plan that the maturity amount of the policy is Rs. 1,04,500/- on depositing Rs. 50,000/- as fixed deposit for 6 years 3 months. In the affidavit of Varinder Singh CSC Incharge of opposite parties Ex.OP-1 it is also clearly admitted that the opposite parties issued a policy No. U017048342 and the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as fixed deposit. From Ex.C-2 it is proved by the complainant that he has submitted the original policy with the required documents with the opposite party No. 2 on 28.11.2013 but despite that the opposite parties have failed to pay the maturity amount. Further, from the copy of plan Ex.C-3 it is clearly proved that any customer who deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the form of fixed deposit for 6 years 3 months is entitled for the amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- on maturity of the policy. The opposite parties failed to produce any document to rebut the case of the complainant and admitted all the case of the complainant.
12. So, in this way the complainant is successful in proving his case, therefore, his complaint is allowed. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 27.11.2013 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay 2,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
4th Day of February 2016
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
