By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, MEMBER

1. Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:-

                   The opposite parties No.3 and 4 approached the complainant introducing   themselves  as   they  are   the Senior Sales manager and marketing co-ordinator of

opposite parties No. 1 and 2  and also introduced  a scheme  of the  opposite party   providing suitable house plots  in Kerala, Karnataka  and Tamil Nadu to the complainant.  As per the scheme the complainant has to pay Rs.1100/- (Rupees One thousand and one hundred only) per month from 16-04-2011 to 16-04-2017 and they will get house plot  worth Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand only) and on maturity the property may worth Rs.1,15,600/-(Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand and six hundred only). Believing the  words of the  opposite parties the husband of the complainant  subscribed the scheme  and booked a house plot thereby.  On 16-04-2011 the opposite parties received Rs.1,100/- (Rupees One thousand and  one hundred only) and issued a certificate to that effect.  Thereafter the opposite parties  regularly collected  monthly instalment   amount  and assured the complainant that  the amount   is very safe   and in case of  any fatal incident  occur  to the subscriber  the nominee  will get  benefit of the scheme.   On 10-08-2014 the husband of the complainant Mr. Sethumadavan  died and  thereafter  the complainant  approached  opposite party  office at Calicut.   The opposite party officials  informed the complainant  that the nominee  will get the  deposited amount   on expiry of   agreement period   and for that purpose   the complainant has to produce  certificate  issued on 16-04-2011  to the  husband of the complainant .  Accordingly the complainant on 30-10-2014 submitted the same  with a letter  to 2^nd opposite party  and they  acknowledged the same .  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the deposited amount  will be  issued to her  after 16-04-2017.  The complainant approached the opposite parties several times after 16-04-2017 but it was in vain.  The opposite parties told various excuses to the complainant. The complainant

alleges  deficiency in service on the  part of the opposite parties and claims  refund of the  deposited amount of 42,900/-  (Rupees Forty two thousand and nine hundred only) with  compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) and cost of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only).

2.         On admission of the complaint  notice issued to the opposite parties .  Opposite party No.3 and 4 entered appearance  and filed version.  Opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and hence set exparte. 

3.         The opposite parties No.3 and 4 admitted that they approached the complainant and her husband   to subscribe the scheme of  opposite party No.1 and 2 on 16-4-2011.   They submitted that they collected the first instalment of Rs.1100/- (Rupees One thousand and one hundred only) and  the subsequent all instalments were remitted by complainant  directly.   They are only   agent of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The husband of the complainant after reading the agreement and understanding the terms and conditions with free  will and consent  subscribed the scheme.  The opposite parties contented that after the death of the husband of the complainant  all  documents  of the agreement  submitted to the PACL office by the complainant and obtained acknowledgement of the same. The sole responsibility to perform as per the terms of agreement rest on  the PACL Company.  On 16-05-2015   SEBI  started to enquire about the PACL and  a case was  filed before  Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter as per the orders of the Supreme Court in 2018 August onwards SEBI commenced to give back money to subscribers as per norms.   In the light of the above facts  opposite party submit that  the customers  including the complainant  on the basis of  Hon’ble supreme Court decision  will get  back the money and these opposite parties may be exonerated  from the liability.

4.            The complainant filed Chief affidavit  in lieu of evidence  along with documents and they are marked  as Ext. A1 to A3 series. Ext. A1   is a Photocopy of   certificate dated 16-4-2011.  Ext. A2 is an acknowledgement   dated 30-10-2014. Ext. A3 series are renewal  subscription receipts 33 in numbers.  Opposite parties   produced documents and they are marked as Ext.B1 and B2.    Ext.B1   is a print out taken from the  Web site of  Securities  and Exchange Board of India regarding  the loan repayment. Ext.B2   is paper publication about the RM Lodha Committee  on SEBI  dated 27-08-2016  (Malayala Manorama daily) .

5.           Heard the complainant  and opposite parties No.3 and 4  .  The following points arise for consideration:-  

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?

6.  Point No.1 & 2

                The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties  filed version and admitted that  the husband of the  complainant  subscribed to the  scheme of the  opposite party PACL.   There is no dispute regarding the remittance of amount to the opposite parties.  There is also no dispute regarding the content of   plot allotment agreement   though the agreement is  not produced either parties to the complaint before the Commission.   The document produced by the complainant   substantiate   their contention.  Ext. A1 is a Photocopy of  certificate dated 16-4-2011 and Ext. A2  is an acknowledgement issued  by  the opposite party on 30-10-2014  which appears payment of Rs.42,900/-(Rupees Forty two thousand and nine hundred only). Ext.A3 series shows the receipt for the payment for the instalments.  Since there is no contra evidence against the material averments of the complaint this Commission accept the contention of the complainant about the subscription  and payment of  Rs.42,900/-(Rupees Forty two thousand and nine hundred only).

7.          The grievance of the complainant is that  even after the  completion of the  term of  agreement, the opposite parties  has not  refunded  or  not allotted  the house plot to the complainant  as agreed  by the agreement.   The opposite parties No.3 and 4  also have no contention  that they have  performed  as per the  agreement.   If that is being the position it is right to hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.             The contention of the opposite parties No.3 and 4 is that   they are only agents of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Except the first instalment amount all other instalments are paid to the  opposite parties  one and two   by the complainant  directly.   The agreement of the complainant is with  PACL company.    Hence the liability to   refund  the  deposit amount  or the allotment of  house plot   rest with  PACL company.  At the same time  opposite parties  No.3 and 4  produced  Ext. B1 and B2  which shows   the issue involved in the complaint  has come before  the Hon’ble   Supreme Court  and Security  and Exchange  Bond of India (SEBI) .  It can be seen that SEBI has started to  process   the issue  by  calling applications  from the customers.  It can be seen from Ext. B1 document press release issued by SEBI on 08-10-2018 that “Only if you have received an SMS asking you to send the original PACL certificates/receipts to the above address.”  In the light of the above facts it is not proper on the side of the Commission to pass an order  ignoring  the above  mentioned facts. 

8.              The documents produced by the opposite parties   shows the  position of the   subscribers  of the scheme   including the  complainant.  Hon’ble  Supreme Court  and SEBI has  interfered  in the matter of disputes  between the  claimants  and the PACL Company.  They have started  proceedings  through the  Retired Justice RM Lodha Committee  to reimburse the  claims of  claimants .    Ext. B2 paper publication  can be treated as part of the proceedings.  It can be seen that  there is direction to subscribers to furnish  their claims with supporting  documents.  That being the situation  the proper  Forum to  approached  the complainant  is  before the  Retired justice RM Lodha Committee .

 9.          The Commission finds that  the complainant  has got  genuine grievance  and also a right to be  protected under Consumer Protection Act.   Complainant is  entitled for the  claim amount of Rs.  42,900/- (Rupees Forty two thousand and nine hundred only) as prayed  in the  complaint.  But  in the above discussed  circumstances   the proper  remedy before the  complainant   is to approach  the concerned  authority , not before this  Commission. It can be seen  that  in paper publication and press release  certain  Cut of Date has  suggested to  file the claim.  But this complainant   instead of   raising the claim before the proper Forum, approached this Commission for Redressal of grievance .   The complainant may bring this facts  to the notice of the  concerned authority.  

10.           In the light of the above facts complaint stands dismissed with liberty to approach the proper Forum to redress the grievance of the  complainant.   Both parties are suffering the cost of the proceedings.                    

            Dated  this 21^st  day  of December,  2020.