| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.152 of 29-01-2016 Decided on 13-07-2016 Dhriti Jindal (Minor), through her mother Monila Jindal aged about 41 years W/o Dinesh Jindal C/o Parkash Brothers R/o Barnala Road, Rampura Mandi, Tehsil Phul & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.PACL India Limited, Branch Office:-S.C.F No.12 Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Responsible Person/Authorized Signatory. 2.PACL India Ltd. Corporate Office, 7th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/Responsible Person/Authorized Signatory/Director Gurjant Singh Gill. 3.PACL India Ltd. Registered Office, 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. (Deleted) .......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.Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2: Ex-parte. Opposite party No.3: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Dhriti Jindal through her mother Monila Jindal (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 opposite party No.1 is the branch office and opposite party No.2 is the corporate office and opposite party No.3 is the registered office of PACL India Limited. She was approached by opposite parties and offered various investment schemes and assured about her safety of the hard earned money. It is alleged that on assurance given by opposite parties, the complainant accepted the offer and started an investment plan. It was agreed between the parties that the plan period is for 5 years 6 months and consideration value of the policy was fixed as Rs.1,25,000/- and as a security they shall register one plot of 2500 sq. yards in her name and at the end of term (after 5 years 6 months from the date of commencement of plan), she would have an option to take maturity amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. It was also condition of the agreement that the sale of the plot would be done after having receipt of 50% of the consideration amount of the plot and charges within the period of 270 days. The agent of opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers and on different blank unfilled forms. The terms and conditions of the policy were not read over and explained to her. The policy started on 22.3.2010 and its document was issued to her with registration No.U018180060. The date of deposit the documents was completed on 22.9.2015 i.e. maturity date of policy. She deposited all installments and after that she stopped paying the installments. It is further alleged that after completion of the term i.e. 5 years 6 months, the complainant approached opposite parties and demanded her money, they asked her to deposit the original policy document and other receipts etc. with them. Accordingly, she deposited the said documents with them at Bathinda office i.e. opposite party No.1 on 21.10.2015, it issued her acknowledgment/maturity letter on 21.10.2015. She deposited the signed stamp paper worth Rs.25/-, signed stamp etc. as demanded by opposite parties. They assured her that she would receive her money within 10 to 15 days. Despite repeated requests and personal visit to the office of opposite party No.1, no money was disbursed to her till date. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to them for payment of maturity amount of Rs.65,040/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. On the statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on 1.2.2016, opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her own affidavit dated 27.1.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of acknowledgment, (Ex.C2); photocopy of policy, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence. 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. 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. 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 Dhriti Jindal 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 disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Committee to seek her claim. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 13-07-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
