| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.476 of 30-10-2015 Decided on 11-05-2016 Kuldeep Singh aged about 47 years S/o Gurnam Singh R/o Village Tangrali, P.O Malkana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.PACL India Limited, SCF No.12, Near Bibi Wala Chowk, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. 2.PACL India Limited, having its Registered Office at 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), through its M.D/Authorized Person. .......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.Rajinder Singh, Advocate. Opposite parties: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Kuldeep Singh (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 Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he adopted a scheme from opposite parties on 7.11.2008 for 6 years and opted to pay quarterly installments of Rs.1625/- per month as per the said scheme. The expiry date of the agreement is 19.11.2014 and its registration number is U-018114140. It is alleged that the complainant paid regularly installments up to 7.11.2014 and also paid Rs.37,500/- to opposite parties. The said scheme was matured on 7.11.2014. After completion of the said scheme, a sum of Rs.57,750/- was to be paid by opposite parties and in the alternative a plot measuring 750 sq. yards was offered to be given to him. It is further alleged that the complainant several times approached opposite parties and requested them to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. 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 amount of Rs.57,750/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and counsel fee to the tune of Rs.5000/-. 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.U018114140 dated 7.11.2008 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.39,000/- 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 his own affidavit dated 10.3.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of registration letter, (Ex.C2); photocopy of acknowledgment, (Ex.C3); photocopy of list of business detail, (Ex.C4) 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. From the contents of complaint and relief claimed by the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant has claimed investor of the 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 Kuldeep Singh 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. 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:- (M.P Singh Pahwa) 11-05-2016 President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
