DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.383 of 16-09-2015

Decided on 11-03-2016

Rajinder Singh aged about 43 years S/o Narveer Singh # No.6176, Mata Rani Gali Near Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.PACL India Limited, Branch Office: S.C.F No.12 Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Responsible Person/Authorized Signatory.

2.PACL India Ltd. Corporate Office, 7^th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/Responsible Person/Authorized Signatory.

3.PACL India Ltd. Registered Office, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

.......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 parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Rajinder 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 Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is the branch office and opposite party No.2 is the corporate office and opposite party No.3 is the registered office of PACL India Limited. He was approached by opposite parties and offered various investment schemes and assured about his safety of the hard earned money.

3. It is alleged that on assurance given by opposite parties, the complainant accepted the offer and started an investment plan. It is called Installment Payment Plan i.e. Recurring Deposit Plan and it was monthly payment plan. At that time opposite parties obtained his signatures on unfilled and blank papers. It was agreed between the parties that the plan period is for 5 years 6 months and complainant shall pay Rs.1000/- per month for 66 months to opposite parties and as a security they shall register one plot of 1250 sq. yards in his name and at the end of term (after 5 years and 6 months from the date of commencement of plan), he would have an option to take maturity amount of Rs.90,920/-. It was also condition of the agreement that the sale of the plot would be done after having receipt of 50% of the consideration amount of the plot and charges within the period of 270 days. The policy document was issued to the complainant with registration No.U018112046. The date of by back of this plan was 7.5.2014. He deposited 21 installments i.e. Rs.21,000/- out of 66 installments and thereafter he stopped paying installments. It was also a condition on the agreement for those customers, who have deposited their installments for less than 2 years, no compensation towards liquidated damages shall be paid and deposited amount towards land advance will be refunded without any deduction after expiry of agreement term. The complainant also falls in this category and he is entitled to his deposited amount after expiry of an agreement.

4. It is further alleged that after completion of the term i.e. 5 years 6 months, the complainant approached opposite parties and demanded his money, they asked him to deposit the original policy document and other receipts etc. with them. Accordingly, he deposited the said documents with them at Bathinda office i.e. opposite party No.1 on 7.5.2014, it issued him acknowledgment and assured him that he would receive his money within 10 to 15 days. Despite repeated requests and personal visit to the office of opposite party No.1, no money was disbursed to him till date.

   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 deposited amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% 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.

5. 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, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan and Corporate office at 7^th 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.

6. It is further pleaded that in this case the complainant applied for a piece of land vide registration No.U018112046 dated 16.10.2008 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.

7. It is further pleaded that as per record, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.21,000/- only with the company against sale consideration. He has intended to discontinue the agreement and has shown his willingness to get refund of his amount, which the company has agreed to make as per terms and conditions of the agreement. 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.

8. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

9. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 15.9.2015, (Ex.C1); acknowledgment, (Ex.C2); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C3); photocopy of voter card, (Ex.C4) and specimen of agreement, (Ex.C5).

10. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

11. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

12. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has invested an amount of Rs.21,000/- with opposite parties. This fact is proved from the account statement, (Ex.C3) and admitted by opposite parties in their written version. Opposite parties in written version have pleaded that they are unable to make refund/payment as the bank account is freezed by order of CBI. This fact also shows that opposite parties were to refund the amount received from the complainant. Of-course, expiry date of agreement was 16.4.2014 but complaint cannot be termed pre-mature as complainant has invested the amount with opposite parties and he can claim amount at anytime. In the agreement, (Ex.C5), there was no condition that the complainant cannot claim refund before expiry date of agreement. At the most he can be given proportionate benefits and interest @ 12% per annum.

13. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

14. As per complainant, he has invested an amount of Rs.21,000/-. Opposite parties have not disputed this amount of Rs.21,000/-. Of-course, it is alleged by opposite parties that they are in business of real estate, but there is nothing on record to show that any land was offered to the complainant by them. Expected value of the land was Rs.90,920/-. Therefore, it appears that it was only for the purpose of investment from the complainant and not for sale, purchase of any land. Expiry date of agreement was 16.4.2014, but there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was debarred from claiming refund of his amount before maturity date. Moreover it is not pleaded by opposite parties that complaint is premature.

15. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2500/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant from the date of deposit of amount till payment.

16. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    11-03-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member