Punjab

Sangrur

CC/106/2015

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K.Singla

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 106

Instituted on:  05.03.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    03.12.2015

 

Vinod Kumar son of Shri Chiranjit Lal, resident of Jain Street, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     PACL India Limited,  SCO No.10,11 & 12, Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     PACL India Limited, 7^th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi through its MD.

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

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Neeraj Kalra, 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.             Shri Vinod Kumar, 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 opened an account bearing number U-107237222 dated 11.7.2013 for 66 months under which the complainant was to deposit Rs.11,375/- per year and another account bearing number 107239806 dated 29.8.2013 for 66 months under which the complainant was to deposit Rs.5460/- per year. It is further averred that the complainant deposited one instalment of Rs.11375/- under account number U-107237222 and two instalments of Rs.5460/- each in the account number U-107239806 and thereafter the Ops stopped to collect the instalments in view of the SEBI orders.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the Ops for deposit of the due instalments, but the Ops refused to do so. Thereafter the complainant requested the Ops for refund of the amount in the month of January, 2015, but all in vain and no satisfactory response was given. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.11375/- under policy number U-107237222 and Rs.10,920/- under policy number 107239806 alongwith interest @ 12.5% per annum from the date of opening of the accounts 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 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 payment plan, Ex.C-3 copy of policy dated 11.7.2013, Ex.C-4 copy of policy dated 29.8.2013 and Ex.C-5 copy of internet news and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced  Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of agreement, 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 U-107237222 dated 11.7.2013 for 66 months under which the complainant was to deposit Rs.11,375/- per year and account bearing number 107239806 dated 29.8.2013 for 66 months under which the complainant was to deposit Rs.5460/- per year. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant  that the complainant deposited one instalment of Rs.11375/- under account number U-107237222 and two instalments of Rs.5460/- each in the account number U-107239806 and thereafter the Ops stopped to collect the instalments in view of the SEBI orders. It is further contended that the complainant approached the Ops in the month of January, 2015 for refund of the amount, but they flatly refused to accede to the request of 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 purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

 

 

6.             Learned counsel for the OPs has further 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. It is worth mentioning here that though the Ops had taken the objection that the complaint is premature as the complainant has not submitted the original document with the OP, but here it does not require to be decided, as the same has already been decided vide our order dated 27.7.2015.

 

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.11375/- under policy number U-107237222 and the amount of Rs.10,920/- under policy number 107239806 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of opening of the accounts in both the policies i.e. 11.07.2013 and 29.08.2013, respectively till  its 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 3, 2015 .

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                           

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                 Member