Punjab

Sangrur

CC/417/2015

Dawinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K. Singla

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 417

                                                                   Instituted on:  05.06.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    07.12.2015

 

Dawinder Singh S/o Shri Balvir Singh, resident of VPO Meemsa, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

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

2.     PACL India Limited, 7^th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi through its Chairman/MD.

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri V.K.Singla, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

           

ORDER:   

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Dawinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, the complainant opened an account bearing number U-107085473 under which the complainant was to deposit an amount of Rs.320/- on monthly basis for 66 months on 12.09.2008, to which the Ops agreed to pay Rs.29,094/- on maturity i.e. 12.03.2014. Thereafter, on maturity the complainant approached the OP and deposited the original policy document  with the OP under acknowledgement slip dated 15.03.2014, but the Ops did not pay the amount despite repeated visits of the complainant.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.29,094/- under  the policy along with agreed rate of  interest i.e. 12.5% from the date of maturity i.e. 12.3.2014 till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, 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 allotted 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 with the OPs for purchase of  land unit and complainant deposited the amount as an advance land consideration. It is further submitted that the Ops 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 OPs have 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 Ops are 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 OPs. It is further stated that the complaint is premature and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of renewal subscription receipt and  Ex.C-3 copy of acknowledgement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of agreement and  Ex.OP-3 copy of bank letter and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had opened an account bearing number U-107085473 with the OPs on 12.09.2008 for 66 months, of which maturity date was 12.3.2014. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the Ops did not pay the due amount despite deposit of the policy document with the Ops, which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the agreement by not depositing the original policy document with the OPs for refund of the money so deposited by him with the Ops nor the complainant has deposited the original policy with the Ops for getting refund of the amount.  It is worth mentioning here that though the complainant has produced on record the copy of acknowledgement Ex.C-3 to show the deposit of original policy document with the OPs, but a bare perusal of the same reveals that it relates to registration number U-107100070 of one Sukhwinder Singh and not of the complainant, meaning thereby the complainant did not submit the original policy document with the Ops for release of maturity amount under the policy in qeustion. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not applied to the Ops for due payment of the policy in question. In the circumstances, we feel that the complaint of the complainant is premature one as the cause of action will arose to the complainant only after submission of the documents to the Ops for refund of the deposited amount. As such, without going further into the merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that present complaint is pre mature one and cannot be decided at this stage.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. It is also made clear that the complainant is at liberty to again approach this Forum, if so desired, as and when the complaint is matured after depositing of the original documents with the Ops.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

Pronounced.

 

                December 7, 2015.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member