| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.79 of 12-01-2016 Decided on 13-05-2016 Kiranpal Kaur aged about 28 years W/o Harbans Singh R/o Village Dharampura, Takhatmal (314), District Sirsa. ........Complainant Versus 1.PACL India Limited, S.C.F No.12 Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory. 2.PACL Ltd. Registered Office, 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004, through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory. (Deleted) 3.PACL India Ltd. Corporate Office, 7th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/Authorized Person/Director. .......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 3: Ex-parte. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Kiranpal Kaur (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 in the month of July 2008, the agent/adviser of opposite parties approached her to sell Installment Payment Plan and conveyed her that as per the said policy, she is required to deposit 12 half yearly installments of Rs.1280/- each with opposite parties and further conveyed her that after completion of 6 years, opposite parties would return her the abovesaid amount alongwith interest i.e. they would return a total sum of Rs.23,100/- or they would allot/register a plot in her name. It is alleged that on assurance given by opposite parties, the complainant agreed to purchase the abovesaid policy. The agent of opposite parties obtained her signatures on blank printed forms and some blank papers. She paid first installment of Rs.1280/- to the agent of opposite parties, they issued her policy bearing registration No.U018099705 commencing from 9.7.2014 but no terms and conditions were ever supplied to her. The said scheme was to be matured on 9.7.2014. She deposited a total sum of Rs.15,360/- with opposite parties. It is further alleged that after completion of 6 years, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested its officials to make the payment of maturity amount, they took the original policy document from her and obtained her signatures on some blank printed forms and blank papers and assured her that the maturity amount against the abovesaid scheme i.e. Rs.23,100/- shall be made to her shortly and issued acknowledgment dated 7.8.2014, 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.23,100/- 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 13.1.2016, opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 appeared through their Authorized Representative. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 3. 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 7.1.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of acknowledgment, (Ex.C2); photocopy of ledger account, (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 Kiranpal Kaur 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:- 13-05-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
