BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.129 of 2018

Date of Instt. 27.03.2018

Date of Decision: 24.06.2019

Kamlesh Kaur, aged about 47 years, resident of 23, Golden Avenue, Phase-II, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1 PACL India Limited, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302 004 through its Managing Director.

Second Address:

PACL House, 8, 1/5, Jwalaheri Road, Pashim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063.

2. Bishan Singh, Agent of PACL India Limited, 2^nd Floor, above Wimpy Restaurant, Opposite Narinder Cinema, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. M. S. Sachdev, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OPs No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that she is NRI and permanent resident at 23, Golden Avenue, Phase-II, Jalandhar and the address of his parents is village Habiwal, Post Office Ibrahimwal, District Kapurthala. The complainant used to visit India time to time. She alongwith her husband came to India in the year 2006 and at that time, the OP No.1 was having its agent at Jalandhar who had approached the complainant and wanted the complainant to invest in the bonds against plots which were to be developed by the OP No.1. The complainant came into the allurement of the agent of OP No.1 and accordingly, complainant got issued 8 bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, details of which are as follows:-

2. That it was agreed that the said bonds were for the period of 10 years and the same would be paid by the OP No.1 on 10.08.2016 and the estimated realizable value at the end of terms was written to be Rs.1,85,335/- each. The bonds were issued at Jalandhar. However, the address of the issuance was mentioned at Hoshiarpur and as the complainant was having his parent's permanent residence at Village Habiwal, Post Office Ibrahimwal, District Kapurthala, so his address of Kapurthala was mentioned to be the address of issuance. However, the entire transaction was made in cash at Jalandhar. The terms and conditions were mentioned at the back page of each bond issued by the OPs and Sh. Prabh Dyal, husband of the complainant is mentioned to be nominee.

3. That from time to time, the complainant had been approaching the OPs and they had been stating that the amount would be paid on the lapse of the period and accordingly, when the complainant came to India after lapsing of the period of bonds in the year 2016 and approached the office of the OPs at Hoshiarpur as well as at New Delhi and found that there was no one to pay the said amount and from time to time, he had been approaching the officers of the OPs, but till date, no payment has been made.

4. That the bonds were purchased by the complainant for the purpose of own livelihood as she being individual wanted to save something for himself in her old age and the said investment was made with the sole idea of welfare at later stage. After receipt of the money and thereafter issuance of the bonds and then non payment of money on demand, clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and thus, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the realizable value of the 8 bonds in total Rs.14,82,680/- and compensation for harassment of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.65,000/- and further prayed that the OPs be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2016, till the date of realization.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs did not come present and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. First of all, we have considered the alleged bonds purchased by the complainant is covered under the definition of commercial purpose or not, but as per version of the complainant, his case fall under the exception of relevant Section being reason the complainant alleged that he purchased the said bonds for the purpose of his own livelihood and thus, we conclude that the purchasing of bonds is not covered under the commercial purpose.

9. Further, the complainant has established on the file that he purchased 8 bonds, its photostat copy Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 available on the file and if we go through the said bonds, wherein categorically mentioned that the complainant paid consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of plot and the validity of the agreement is upto 10.08.2016 and further in next column, it is clearly mentioned that estimated realizable value at the end of term is Rs.1,85,335/-, means if the plot is not handed over to the complainant, then the above said realizable amount of each bonds will be paid to the complainant, but admittedly the OP did not bother to appear nor the said amount has ever paid to the complainant. The version of the complainant is corroborated with his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereas the case of the complainant goes un-rebutted and un-challenged because the same is not contested by the OPs for want of appearance and under these circumstances, we have no earthly ground to discard the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant and ultimately, find that the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for return of the bonds amount of Rs.14,82,680/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 10.08.2016, till realization and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for causing mental harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

24.06.2019 Member President