Punjab

Sangrur

CC/7/2015

Rajbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpal Singh Dhandley

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 7

Instituted on:  05.01.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    08.06.2015

 

Rajbir Kaur wife of Sukhjinder Singh, R/o Street No.1, Indra Basti, Sohian Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     PACL India Ltd. SCO 10-12, Outside Dhuri Gate, Near HDFC Bank Ltd. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     PACL India Ltd.  22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004  through its General Manager/M.D.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Inderpal Singh , 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.             Smt. Rajbir Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, she opened an account bearing no. U107090784 by depositing an amount of Rs.37,500/- on 12.11.2008 and the Ops were to pay/repay to the complainant an amount of Rs.57,750/- on maturity on 12.11.2014 after submitting all the documents to the Ops.  The complainant submitted all the documents to the OP number 1 on 08.11.2014, but the OPs did not pay the amount due despite lapse of sufficient period.  The complainant also approached the Ops so many times, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.57,750/- along with interest @18% per annum from the  due date of maturity till payment,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of  compensation  for mental agony, harassment and 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 alloted 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 bearing registration number U107090784 with the Ops on 12.11.2008 for purchase of land unit and deposited Rs.37,500/- only as an advance for land consideration. It is submitted that OPs never gave assurance to the complainant that land advance consideration will be refunded after prescribed period.  It is also 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 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of agreement, Ex.C-3 copy of acknowledgement of deposit of documents, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced  Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 copy of bank letter and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             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 opened an account bearing number U107090784 by depositing an amount of Rs.37,500/- which was repayable after the maturity period i.e. Rs.57,750/- on 12.11.2014, as is evident from the copy of registration letter, which is on record as Ex.C-5 and the complainant has further stated that he submitted all the required documents  with the Ops, but the Ops have failed to repay the amount to him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that OPs is a registered company under the Companies Act and  engaged in the real estate business and also in the business of sale and development of agriculture land/plot across  the country and allot the land to the customer 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 OP is that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land unit to the answering respondent. This argument of the learned counsel for the OP is not tenable because no such agreement as stated by the learned counsel for the OP has been placed on record. Further, no document has been produced by the OPs to show that they have not purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

 

6.             Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that  the OPs 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 was fixed for  hearing on 05.05.2015. Astonishingly, the OPs have not produced any document/ order on record regarding the case filing/ pending with the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which provides information regarding actual/ factual position in the matter before this Forum. Further, the OPs have produced on record copy of letter of the bank of Baroda Ex.OP-2 in which two current 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 due amount as agreed between the parties.

 

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.57,750/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 12.11.2014 till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- being consolidated amount of compensation.

 

8.             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.       

Pronounced.

 

                June 8, 2015

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member