DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 397/2015
Date of Institution : 24.08.2015
Date of Decision : 03.02.2016
Mejar Singh aged about 55 years son of Nachhatar singh resident of Burj Dhilwan , Tehsil and District Mansa.
…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
(Ms. Vandna Sidhu Member)
As per complaint No. 397/2015 complainant Mejar Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act against PACL India Limited through its Authorized Signatory and its Branch office at Barnala.
2. As per the facts which are mentioned in the complaint that the complainant has invested a total sum of Rs. 45,000/- in cash with the opposite parties through fixed deposit on 14.11.2008 and it was agreed between complainant and opposite parties that opposite parties will pay an estimated sum of Rs. 94,050/- to the complainant on 14.2.2015 and in this regard the opposite parties issued a policy cum registration letter bearing No. U017092572. So, by this way the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is also averred by the complainant that as per the agreement and terms and conditions submitted the registration letter cum policy in the office of opposite party No. 2 for release of estimated value for the sum of Rs. 94,050/- on 23.2.2015. So, for the compliance of this agreement opposite party No. 2 issued receipt and the Manager of opposite party No. 2 gave assurance by verbally to the complainant that the payment will be made within few days and after some days the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for collecting the estimated amount but the Manager of opposite party No. 2 made pretext that the amount will pay on next week. Again complainant made many visits in the office of the opposite party No. 2 but the opposite parties have lingered on the matter and the payment was not made. So that's why it is alleged by the complainant that this is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant filed the present complaint for gaining the following reliefs.-
1) To make the payment as per the agreement of Rs. 94,050/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation of humiliation and harassment of the complainant.
3) To pay Rs. 2,000/- of litigation expenses.
3. In regard of jurisdiction the complainant explained in complaint that the office of opposite party No. 2 is at Barnala so by this way the above stated Forum has the jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the complaint.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed their version in which they submitted that the opposite party is a real estate company which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land and development and construction of residential as well as commercial projects.
5. In the present complaint the opposite parties submitted in their version that the complainant had applied for a piece of land vide registration No. U017092572 dated 14.11.2008 and the complainant has duly executed an agreement with the company for the same. Moreover, it is also submitted that the opposite party is a body of corporate incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. It has a status of legal persona and as such being a legal entity it has the right to sue and be sued in its own name and can be sued for its own liabilities only. Moreover, it is also submitted by opposite parties that the above stated complaint is false and the complainant has intentionally and willfully not disclosed material facts and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it is also submitted by opposite parties that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement which has been executed between the parties, according to which the parties should invoke arbitration proceedings for redressal of their grievances according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is also submitted that complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- only with the company against sale consideration in the aforesaid registration. So, the complainant will get refund of her amount which the company has agreed to make as per terms and conditions of the agreement, if the complainant intended to discontinue the agreement and shown her willingness to require her amount.
6. It is also submitted that Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against the answering company-M/s PACL Limited vide R.C. BD1/2014/E/0004 under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC on 19.2.2014 and pursuant to the same it has passed directions to the concerned banks for freezing of its bank accounts. It is also submitted that the opposite party has filed a writ petition (Criminal) No. 705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the directions of CBI for de-freezing bank accounts. The Hon'ble High Court allowed de-freezing the bank accounts vide order dated 6.5.2014. Thereafter, CBI again freezed the bank accounts of company. The company has filed an application (Criminal Misc. 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. It is further mentioned in version that the opposite parties assured that the customer's money is safe and the answering respondent is committed towards its customers and always willing to fulfill its commitments. It is also submitted that the opposite parties helpless to make payment to the customers including the complainant till the disposal of the appeal by the SEBI Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and de-freezing of the bank accounts by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hence it is alleged that there is no deficiency of service and cause of action.
7. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 i.e. his own affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy deposit receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of plan and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the complaint of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Varinder Singh CSC Incharge Barnala and closed the evidence.
9. After perusing the entire record minutely and hearing counsels of both the parties, this forum have a view that before considering the above said matter on merits , it is relevant to deal with objections raised by the opposite parties .
10. The first objection, which is raised by the complainant that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the compliant in question. Because there is an agreement which is executed between the complainant and opposite parties. So, by this way there is an Arbitration clause in the agreement according to which the parties should invoke arbitration proceedings for redressal of their grievance as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
11. It is also authoritatively settled that the arbitration clause is not a bar to the entertainment of the compliant by the redressal agency under the Act, even if the arbitration provisions has been laid down in statute.
12. In compliant titled as Gurpreet Singh versus Puma Realtors pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh S.C.D.R.C Page 91 in CPJ December 2015 Vol. IV Consumer Protection Act 1996 - Section 5,8 - jurisdiction -Arbitration clause in plot Buyer 's Agreement - complaint filed by a consumer before Consumer fora maintainable despite their being an arbitration clause in agreement to refer dispute to Arbitrator.
So, this forum has jurisdiction as per the above said judgment and above said objection is baseless.
13. Opposite parties have also raised objection as per their written version that CBI has registered a case against the answering company named M/S PACL Limited R.C.B.D. /2014/E /0004 U/S 420 and 120 -B of IPC on 19.2.2014 and in regard of it CBI has freezed the bank accounts of the opposite parties. And the above said matter is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court, because opposite parties has filed a Writ Petition (criminal ) no.705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and the above mentioned writ petition is pending against the directions of CBI. So, this Forum is not competent to decide the present complaint. After consideration this fact came in knowledge that opposite parties did not bring any record of above said dispute before this Forum. So, the above mentioned objection is useless.
14. Further opposite parties objected in written version that complainant applied for piece of land vide registration no. U017092572 dated 14.11.2008 and the complainant has duly executed in agreement with the company for same .
15. In pursuance of the above said objection complainant brought on record Exhibit C-1 i.e. his affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy deposit receipt and Ex.C-3 i.e copy of cash down payment plan and opposite parties have not rebutted these documents. Moreover complainant produced on record plan which showed if complainant deposit Rs. 45,000/- on 14.11.2008 then its maturity amount is Rs. 94,050/- on 14.2.2015 and opposite parties have issued a policy cum registration letter bearing no. U017092572 to the complainant. So, after maturity of the above said plan nothing has given to complainant, this is not only deficiency in service but unfair trade practice also under section 2 (1) (r) of the CP Act 1986 .
16. So, as per the opinion of the above said forum the above stated complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 94,050/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% Per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 14.2.2015 till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 1,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of the this order be made within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
Announced in open Forum
3rd Day of February 2016
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
