Punjab

Sangrur

CC/596/2015

Ranjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K. Singla

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                       Complaint No. 596

Instituted on:  13.07.2015

                                                                        Decided on:    09.12.2015

 

Ranjeet Kaur D/O Sh. Sher Singh, nominee of Mukhtiar Singh (deceased), resident of Safipur Kalan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

 

1.     PACL India Limited, SCO 10,11,12, Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     PACL India Limited, 7^th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its MD.

3.     PACL India Ltd. 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Chairman.

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri V.K.Singla, Advocate                          

 

FOR 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. Ranjeet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, Shri Mukhtiar Singh since deceased, brother of the complainant opened an account with the Ops bearing number U107136754 dated 07.12.2009 under which he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the term of 63 months with the OPs and the maturity value of the policy was Rs.18,600/- and the policy was to mature on 07.03.2015.  It is further averred that in the year 2012 Shri Mukhtiar Singh died and the complainant being the nominee approached the Ops and gave intimation about the death of Shri Mukhtiar Singh and submitted the death certificate etc and therefore, on maturity the complainant approached the OPs for release of the due payment of the policy i.e. Rs.18,600/- and also deposited the original policy document with the OPs vide receipt dated 17.03.2015, but the Ops did not make the payment of the policy despite deposit of the policy document.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to release the payment of Rs.18,600/- along with interest @ 12.5% per annum from the due date of payment till realization and further claimed compensation 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 allotted 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 amount as an advance land consideration. It is further submitted that the 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 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 OPs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy and Ex.C-3 copy of acknowledgement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of agreement and Ex.OP-3 copy of bank letter and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of 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 Shri Mukhtiar Singh since deceased, brother of the complainant had opened an account with the Ops bearing number U107136754 dated 07.12.2009 under which he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the term of 63 months with the OPs and the maturity value of the policy was Rs.18,600/- and the policy was to mature on 07.03.2015.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the year 2012 Shri Mukhtiar Singh died and the complainant being the nominee approached the Ops and gave intimation about the death of Shri Mukhtiar Singh and submitted the death certificate etc, therefore, as such, on maturity the complainant approached the OPs for release of the due payment i.e. Rs.18,600/- and also deposited the original policy document with the OPs vide receipt dated 17.03.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The Photostat copy of the policy is also on record as Ex.C-2, which clearly reveals that the complainant was the nominee under the policy,  but the Ops did not make the payment of the policy despite deposit of the policy document with the Ops. 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 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 OPs 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 OPs is not tenable because no such agreement as stated by the learned counsel for the OPs has been placed on record. Further, no document has been produced by the OPs to show that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

6.             Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that  the OPs had approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court  against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending disposal  before the Hon’ble High Court. Astonishingly, the OP has 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-3 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.10,000/-  to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the due date of payment i.e. 7.3.2015 till realization in full. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- on account  of compensation and further Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

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

Pronounced.

 

                December 9, 2015.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member