DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.172 of 08-02-2016

Decided on 01-08-2016

Chetan Anand S/o Bharat Bhushan Anand R/o H.No.3032/A-2, Street No.8, Ajit Road, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.The PACL India Limited, Registered Office, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004, through its C.M.D. (Deleted)

3.Incharge, Customer Service Centre, PACL India Limited, SCF-12, Bharat Nagar, Near Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda-151001.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For complainant: Sh.N.K Jeet, Advocate.

Opposite party No.1: Deleted.

Opposite party No.2: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Chetan Anand (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).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got registered one plot with opposite parties under Payment Plan No.17 for a term of 5 years 6 months. He was to deposit quarterly installment of Rs.11,680/- i.e. a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. He deposited the first installment on 10.8.2009. Opposite parties issued a registration letter bearing No.BS29B7878378 dated 10.8.2009 in favour of complainant. The registration number of plot was U018149807 and date of commencement was 10.8.2009. As per terms and conditions after completion of 5 years 6 months, opposite party No.1 was to pay the realizable value of Rs.3,63,680/- to the complainant. The complainant paid all quarterly installments.

3. It is alleged that after completion of 5 years 6 months, the complainant submitted all the original documents to opposite party No.2 for claiming realizable value of Rs.3,63,680/- on 5.2.2015 and obtained acknowledgment. Opposite parties were required to make the payment of the realizable value of the deposit amounting to Rs.3,63,680/- to the complainant immediately on receipt of documents, but they told him to wait for a month. After one month, the complainant visited opposite party No.2 to get the realizable value, but to no effect. He repeatedly visited opposite party No.2 and finally, he visited on 17.12.2015, but till date nothing has been paid.

   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 maturity amount of Rs.3,63,680/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. On the statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on 11.4.2016, opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

5. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

6. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

7. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 29.6.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of registration letter, (Ex.C2); photocopy of terms and conditions, (Ex.C3); photocopies of receipts, (Ex.C4 to Ex.C32); photocopy of acknowledgment, (Ex.C33) and photocopy of order, (Ex.C34).

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

10. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

11. From the contents of the complaint and relief claimed by the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant has claimed investor of opposite parties. 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.

12. 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.”

13. 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 Chetan Anand is one of the investor, who made investment with opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited.

14. 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 disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Committee to seek his claim.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    01-08-2016

     

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member