Punjab

Sangrur

CC/130/2015

Bharpoor Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K.Singla

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 130

                                                                    Instituted on:  12.03.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    15.06.2015

 

Bharpoor Kaur w/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh, resident of Kheri Jattan, Post Office Dhadogal, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.                                                  

…. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

PACL India Ltd. SCO No. 10,11,12, Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur through its Manager.

             ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Vinod Singla , Advocate                           

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Bharpoor Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on the request of OP, she opened an account under CDPP ( Cash Down payment plan) bearing A/c no. U107064083 on 31.03.2008 and deposited an amount of Rs.22,500/- in 75 months and the OP agreed to pay an amount of Rs.47025/- on maturity of the account. Thereafter on maturity, the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP  on 31.03.2008, but the OP did not pay the due amount despite lapse of sufficient period.  The complainant also approached the OP so many times, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.47025/- along with interest @17.5% per annum from the  date of maturity i.e. 30.06.2014 till payment,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of  compensation  for mental agony, harassment and an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up.  It is stated that M/s PACL  Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and it is engaged in the real estate business and also in the  business of sale and development of  agricultural land/  plot across  the country and allot the  land to the customer  for which an agreement is executed  between the company and the customer and there is a specific clause in the agreement that any dispute pertaining to the said agreement will be referred to the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that complainant entered into an agreement bearing registration number U107064083 with the OP on 31.03.2008 and deposited the amount of Rs.22500/-. It is submitted that OP never gave assurance to the complainant that land advance consideration will be refunded after prescribed period.  It is also submitted that  CBI  has  freezed the bank account of the PACL Limited  for which OP has approached the Hon’ble High Delhi High Court against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending  disposal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. So, the OP  is helpless to make refund/ payment of its customer and such delay in refund of the complainant  is neither intentional nor deliberately.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 copy of payment plans, Ex.C-2 copy of agreement performa, Ex.C-3 copy of SEBI order dated 23.8.2014, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 10.2.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt dated 31.03.2008, Ex.C-6 copy of acknowledgement affidavit Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 copy of bank letter and closed evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the OP has specifically argued that the complainant has not impleaded the necessary parties in the complaint, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has not taken any objection in the written reply.  

5.             We have gone through the documents and affidavit Ex.OP-1 of the OP. In the affidavit Ex.OP-1, the OP has taken an objection that the complainant did not implead the necessary parties in the complaint but the OP has not disclosed that what are the necessary parties which should be impleaded in the complaint by the complainant.

6.             From the perusal of the record, we find that the complainant has filed the present complaint against PACL India Limited, Opp. H.D.F.C. Bank, Near Goyal Laboratory Dhuri Gate, Sangrur its Manager. The complainant has  filed the present complaint only against the branch office, Sangrur through Branch Manager of PACL India Limited. The PACL India is a Limited company which can be sued through its Chairman or Managing Director. The Branch Manager has no authority/ power to take decision in the affairs of a limited company nor the Branch Manager is  principal  officer of the company. So, we feel that the complainant has not properly sued the PACL India Limited  having its Head Office at 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur. Moreover, the complainant has entered into an agreement with the PACL India Limited having its Head Office at jaipur and not with the branch office which is situated at Sangrur. Hence, in our view no effective  order can be passed against the branch office of OP unless the company can be sued through its Chairman/ Managing Director.

7.             So, in view of the above discussion, we feel that the present complaint against only branch office through its Branch Manager is not maintainable and accordingly same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint after sueing  the PACL India Limited through its Chairman/ Managing Director and other proper parties. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

                Announced

                June 15,2015

 

 

(Sarita Garg)       (K.C.Sharma)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

        Member                    Member             President

 

 

 

BBS/-