Haryana

Jind

147/2014

Raghbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pacl India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Kailash Verma

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 147 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 12.11.2014
   Date of final order: 22.7.2016

Raghbir s/o Sh. Dariya r/o village Kandela, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
PACL India Ltd. corporate office 7th floor Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba road New Delhi through its Managing Director.
Branch Manager PACL India Ltd. Distt. Shopping Center HUDA near Delhi Hospital, Jind.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Kailash Verma, Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite parties. 
                   
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that the opposite parties are  doing business for taking money from general public and returning them along with interest under the name and style of PACL India Ltd. having its registered office at Jaipur. The opposite parties are also engaged in carrying out real estate business i.e. Development of Group Housing Projects, Townships, constructions and Developments of commercial projects shopping malls, farm houses as 
            Raghbir v/s PACL etc.
                   …2…….
well as sale and purchase. The representative of the opposite parties approached the complainant and alleged to deposit the amount in company and they will gave more benefit instead of depositing the amount in bank or any other financial institution and the company is registered company and the deposited amount will be safe.  On 19.6.2006 he  had deposited an amounts  of  Rs.20,000/-   vide registration No. U059015476, Rs.20,000/- vide  registration No. U059015477, Rs.20,000/- vide registration No. U059015478,  Rs.20,000/- vide registration No. U059015479 and Rs.20,000/- vide registration No. U0590154780 totaling to Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 7 years i.e. 19.6.2013 in the Jind Branch Office.  The  above account of the complainant was matured on 19.6.2013. The complinant submitted all required documents for making the payment to the opposite parties but the opposite parties  have paid maturity amount of 4 deposits/registration number but did not pay one registration No. U059015479 maturing amount of Rs.47,688/- till date. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.47,688/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., a sum of Rs.30,000/-  as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is contended that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has freezed the bank account of the opposite parties ‘PACL LTD’ in case crime No. R.C.BD1/2014/E/2004.The opposite parties

            Raghbir v/s PACL etc.
                   …3……. 
have approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending disposal before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is 
fixed for hearing on 5.5.2015. The opposite parties are helpless to make the payments to its customer and as such delay in payment of the complainant is neither intentional nor deliberately for payment. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint is prayed for. 
3.      In evidence, the complainant has produced copies of receipts Ex. C-1 to C-5,  copy of return original document Ex. C-6, copy of land registration detail ex. C-7, copy of letter dated 30.6.2014 Ex. C-8, copy of letter dated 24.6.2014 Ex. C-9 and affidavit of  complainant Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced  the affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.  
4.    We  have gone through the pleading of both the parties, the reply of  para No. 4  of complaint regarding the complainant had deposited the   amounts on 19.6.2006 and  the above said amount  was matured on 19.6.2013 and complainant submitted all the documents for making the maturity amount but the opposite parties did not pay the maturity amount. The opposite party has filed the evasive reply and not denying depositing of the amount mentioned above. The opposite parties have taken the plea only  that the ( CBI) has freezed the bank account of the opposite parties ‘PACL LTD’ in case crime No. R.C.BD1/2014/E/2004.The opposite parties have approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending disposal before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter is fixed for hearing on 5.5.2015. The opposite parties are 
             Raghbir v/s PACL etc.
                   …4…….
helpless to make the payments to its customer and as such delay in payment of the complainant is neither intentional nor deliberately  but the same is for the reasons stated above which are beyond the control of opposite parties. 
5.    We are of the considered view that the complainant has deposited the  total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties  but the opposite parties  have paid maturity amount of 4 deposits/registration number but did not pay one registration No. U059015479 maturing amount of Rs.47,688/- till date. There is great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the opposite parties have wrongly withheld the maturity amount of  Rs.47,688/-  to the complainant, hence, the complainant is entitled the maturity amount along with interest. So the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to make the maturity amount of Rs.47,688/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant from the date of maturity i.e. 19.6.2013 till its final realization. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be compliance within one month from the date of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

                                                                                  President,
                                                                   District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Jind. 
               Member              Member                 22.7.2016

                  Raghbir v/s PACL etc.   
                                       

            
Present:  Sh. Kailash Verma, Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite parties. 

               Arguments heard.  To come up on 22.7.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           21.7.2016

Present:  Sh. Kailash Verma, Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Deepak Sharma Adv. for opposite parties
. 
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                            President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           22.7.2016