Punjab

Sangrur

CC/683/2015

Moti Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Jindal

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                    

                                                         

                                                                    Complaint no. 683                                                                                                 

                                                                     Instituted on:  20.07.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    13.01.2016

 

Moti Lal son of Sh. Karnail Singh  c/o A.K.Collection  Near Kakadwal Pull, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.                                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     PACL India Limited, SCO 10-12, Outside Dhuri Gate, Opposite Near HDFC Bank Limited Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory; 

 

2.     PACL India Limited, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur, 302004 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3.     PACL India Limited, Corporate Office: 7^th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan , 28  Barkhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

         ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Ritesh Jindal, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Moti Lal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the advice of OP No.1, he obtained a policy bearing reg. no. U107094203 dated 15.12.2008  for  the term of six years which was to be matured on 15.12.2014 and the maturity value of policy is Rs.69300/-. After the expiry of policy, the complainant had submitted the original policy along with relevant documents with OPs under acknowledgement on 06.06.2015 but she had not received the maturity amount till date. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make/release the maturity amount  of Rs.69300/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till payment,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service

iii)    Ops be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as 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 allot 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 alleged amount as an advance land consideration. It is submitted that OP never gave assurance to the complainant that land advance consideration will be refunded after prescribed period.  It has also been 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 OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

4.             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 been depositing the amount regularly with OPs for six years and OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.69300/-. The complainant has also stated that on 06.06.2015 he submitted all documents with the OPs but Ops have failed to repay the amount to her. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that OP  is a registered company under the Companies Act and engaged in the real estate business and also in the business of sale, purchase of agricultural land under certain schemes of Fixed payment plan and installment payment plan etc. 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.  Second objection of the OPs is that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land to the answering respondent. It has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant had deposited the above said amount. The argument of the learned counsel for the OPs is not tenable because no document has been produced by the OPs showing that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.  However, the OPs have stated  that  accounts of the Sangrur Branch of the OPs had been freezed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, but we feel that with the freeze of accounts, the OPs cannot escape from their liability and same still stands. As such, OPs are liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties. 

5.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.69300/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and harassment.  We also order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.  

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

January 13, 2016.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                   

Member                    Member                       President

BBS/-