Smt.Gurmeet Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which she has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the maturity amount of Rs.57,750/-. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation  on account of physical harassment and mental agony  and litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties approached her and allured that there is a Scheme of Pearl Company and he has to deposit the amount of Rs.550/- per month for regularly 6 years and after the expiry, the opposite parties would make the payment of Rs.57,750/- as full and final payment to him. Accordingly he has taken the said policy on 30.1.2008 and opposite party no.2 issued cover note on 30.1.2008 bearing Sr.No.YK 38 A 942713 and thereafter he has deposited the installments regularly without any default. He has further pleaded that after the maturity period i.e. 30.1.2014, he started approaching the opposite party no.2 with the request to release the maturity amount of Rs.57,750/- in his favour, but they always procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other. She is a poor lady. A legal notice dated 25.8.2015 was issued through his counsel calling upon the opposite parties to release the maturity amount in her favour but the opposite party have not given any reply to the abovesaid notice. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great mental agony and has suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.

3.       Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the Company PACL LTD is neither the Financial Establishment nor the Non Banking Financial Company and the Company is not collecting/accepting deposit from public by promising lucrative high rate of interest. It is further submitted that the complaint is based on false and baseless allegations and the complainant has intentionally and willfully not disclosed material facts and documents in this regard and in these circumstance present complaint liable to be dismissed; there is an agreement between the parties that any disputes obtaining the said agreement will be referring to the Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes. That there is an agreement executed between the parties and Arbitration Clause in agreement according to which the complainant should have invoked Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and complainant has no cause of action in favour to file the present complaint against the opposite parties hence the complaint deserves only dismissal in the interest of justice. On merits, it was submitted that PACL Ltd 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. In the present case the complainant has applied for piece of land vide Registration No.U238038603 dated 30.1.2008 and the complainant has deposited sum of Rs.39,600/- as Land Advance and executed agreement with the Company for the same. Opposite party does not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received from complainant is an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot. It was further submitted that opposite party never promise to pay any money to the complainant, opposite party promise only realizable value of land after selling of his plot/land. It was next submitted that  the CBI has registered a case against the opposite party vide R.C.BD1/2014/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 its account. The opposite party filed writ petition (Criminal) No.705/2014 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court against the direction of the CBI  for defreezing of bank accounts vide order dated 6.5.2014. Hon’ble High Court allowed defreezing of the bank accounts, however, thereafter CBI again freeze the bank accounts of company. The company has filed an application in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.705/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the said application is still pending. Due to this reason opposite party is not able to refund estimated realizable value of land to complainant. So there is no  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to ExC7 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Paramjit Singh, Incharge of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the both of the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. We are certainly not convinced with the OP Co.’s objection pleading that the inclusion of ‘arbitration’ clause in the mutually entered upon policy agreement has ousted the jurisdiction of the consumer forum; and thus, we overrule the same on the strength of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act that provides the said ‘relief’ as an alternate remedy in addition to the existing ones as already available under the continuing statute laws. Further, the prime plea for non-payment of the complainant’s overdue funds also does not hold water since the complainant has not been a party before any statutory authority ordering for the ‘freeze’ of the OP funds in the Bank and all the more when it stands proved on records that outward payments are in ‘progress’ but in a selective mode. Moreover, it has not been the case of the OP Co. that all its ‘funds’ stand ‘restrained’ and no other ‘sources’ of funds are within its reach. We feel that even with the freeze of accounts, the OP cannot escape from their liability and same still stands.   It also gets proved on record that the OP Co. has been thus indulging in ‘unfair’ trade practices coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ and that holds it liable to an adverse award under the Act.

7.       In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to pay the full maturity amount to the complainant in all his accounts (that has fallen due for payment) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

8.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                                                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

December,30 2015                                                             Member

*MK*