Punjab

Sangrur

CC/237/2015

Tilak Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 237

Instituted on:  27.04.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    04.09.2015

 

Tilak Raj son of Shri Punnu Ram, resident of 21, Adarsh Mohalla, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     PACL India Ltd. SCO No. 10-12, Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     PACL India Ltd. Regd. Office: 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur 302 004 through its M.D.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

           

ORDER:   

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Tilak Raj 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, the complainant obtained a policy bearing number U107082069 dated 16.08.2008 for the term of 66 months vide which the complainant deposited Rs.240/- per month and the maturity value of the policy was Rs.21,820/- and the maturity date of the policy was 16.2.2014.  Further case of the complainant is that after the maturity of the policy, the complainant approached the opposite parties for release of the payment of Rs.21,820/- and also deposited the original policy document with the OPs vide receipt dated 4.3.2014, but the Ops did not made the payment of the policy despite lapse of more than one year.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.21,820/- along with interest @18% per annum from the  due date of maturity till payment,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of  compensation  for mental agony, harassment and an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of 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 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 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 OPs.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of acknowledgement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and 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 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 U107082069 and had deposited 66 instalments of Rs.240/- each with the OPs and in turn the OPs agreed to pay Rs.21,820/- on maturity date i.e. 16.2.2014 as is evident from the document i.e. registration letter, which is on record as Ex.C-2 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 the complainant. 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 not 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.21,820/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of payment i.e. 16.02.2014 till realization. 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 30 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.

 

                September 4, 2015

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member