| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C.No. 420 of 09-10-2015 Decided on : 11-04-2016 Bhushan Kumar Bansal aged about 50 years S/o Ram Partap R/o Ward No. 2, Pippal Wali Gali, Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus PACL Ltd. Registered Office, 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004, through its Managing Director. PACL India Limited, Branch Office: S.C.F No.12 Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present For complainant: Sh. Pardeep Sharma , Advocate. Opposite parties: Ex-parte. ORDER Jarnail Singh, Member The complainant Bhushan Kumar Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties PACL India Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that being induced by the concerned official/Agent of opposite parties, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash with opposite party No. 2 at Bathinda on 6-5-2010. The complainant was issued certificate/policy No. 3286756 dated 6-5-2010 (Regn. No. U018187875) On the said certificate, it was clearly mentioned that the Term of the said plan is 5Y-3M and that the estimated realization amount is Rs. 92,900/-. It is alleged that said term of 5 yeas and three months has lapsed on 30-7-2015 and the complainant became entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 92,900/- from the opposite parties against certificate on 30-7-2015 but the opposite parties have failed to pay the said amount to him till date although a period 1-1/2 year has already elapsed. It is further alleged that complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 many times and requested them to refund the total amount to him but to no effect rather the opposite parties have been putting the matter off under one pretext or the other and ultimately, they refused to refund any amount. The opposite parties have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the said amount without assigning any cogent reason. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to them for payment of amount of Rs. 92,900/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their Authorized Representative and contested the complaint by filing their written version. In their joint written version, they have pleaded that PACL Limited, having its registered office at 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan and Corporate office at 7th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and is a corporate body incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. It has status of a legal persona, as such being a legal entity, it has right to sue for its own liability. It is Real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land and development and construction of residential as well as commercial projects. It is further pleaded that in this case the complainant applied for a piece of land vide registration No.U018187875 dated 30.04.2010 and he has duly executed agreement with the company for same. This complaint is based on false and baseless averments. He has intentionally and willfully not disclosed the material facts. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties U/s 2(g) of 'Act'. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cause-of-action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties to file this complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. 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 the redressal of their grievances in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further pleaded that as per record, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only with the company against sale consideration. CBI has registered a case against opposite parties vide R.C.BDI/2014/E/0004 U/s 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 their bank accounts. Opposite parties have filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No.705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the direction of CBI for defreezing bank accounts. Vide order dated 6.5.2014, Hon'ble High Court allowed defreezing of the bank accounts. Thereafter CBI again freezed the bank accounts of company. The company has filed an application (Crl.M.A.No.12444/2014) in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is still pending. The company is helpless to make payment to the complainant due to defreezing of the bank accounts by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhushan Kumar dated 23.9.2015, (Ex.C-1), photocopy of registration letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of agreement (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of acknowledgment (Ex.C-4) and closed the evidence. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Civil Appeal Nos.13301, 13319, 13394 and 13304 of 2015 titled as Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India relates to some investors who invested their money with PACL Limited (opposite party). Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order vide which SEBI shall constitute committee for disposing of land purchased by company so that the sale proceedings can be paid to investors, who have invested the amount in the company for purchase of land. It is further ordered that the decision with regard to sale of property of company by committee is not to be interfered by any court. The Paras No.3, 7, 12 and 13 of the order passed in the abovesaid Civil Appeal are relevant and extracted as under:- “3) The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, .so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee. 7) The methodology with regard to recovery of amount by sale of the land and disbursement of the amount to the investors shall be overseen by the Members of the Committee. 12) The amount, which is lying in the bank accounts of the Company and other cash belonging to the Company shall be released in favour of SEBI so that it can be used either for disbursement in favour of the investors or for incurring necessary expenditure. If any amount has been deposited by the Company or by its Directors or by any other person on behalf of the Company in any Court, the same shall be released in favour of the SEBI, who shall have a separate account so as to deal with the same. The Committee shall also decide as to whether the staff of the Company should be continued or relieved. 13) The decision with regard to sale of property of the company by the Committee shall not be inferred with by any Court.” The Hon'ble Committee under the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court has already seized of the matter in question. In this complaint, it is not disputed that the complainant namely Bhushan Kumar is one of the investor, who made investment with opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited. In view of aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that this Forum cannot pass an executable order against opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is hereby disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Committee to seek his claim. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced 11-04-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh ) (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member Member
| |
