DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 274/2014
Date of Institution : 11.12.2014
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
Jaspal Kumar, aged about 27 years, s/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass r/o Patti Malah, V.P.O. Aklia, Tehsil and District Mansa.
…Complainant
Versus
PACL India Ltd., Bhai Mani Singh Chowk, Near Lifeline Hospital, Barnala, District Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. SK Kotia Advocate counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal Advocate counsel for the opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri J.S. Khushdil : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER):
The complainant Jaspal Kumar/Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the opposite party supported by his affidavit and various documents as mentioned in para No. 9 of the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As per the version of the complainant, he is consumer of the opposite party. The complainant obtained a policy bearing No. U017026387 on 3.1.2007 for the purpose of saving to be matured on 3.1.2014. The complainant paid all the required payments to the opposite party, thus having no dues towards the complainant. Allegedly, on 10.1.2014, the complainant approached the opposite party with a request to release the maturity amount of Rs. 22,807/- in time. The complainant deposited all the documents with the opposite party as desired. The opposite party got signatures of the complainant on some blank forms/receipts and the receipt dated 10.1.2014 was issued to the complainant and he was asked to come after one month for collection of the maturity amount. The original policy is however in the custody of the opposite party. After the expiry of one month the complainant again approached the opposite party and made a request to release the maturity amount but the opposite party put off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly it was told to the complainant that the maturity amount would be released after 4/5 months, however without disclosing any reason. Allegedly, the opposite party failed to release the maturity amount till the filing of the complaint. The complainant further alleged that due to the said act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant is undergoing a mental agony, tension and harassment being given by the opposite party. It is alleged that there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party many a times to release the maturity amount but all efforts turned futile. Thus with these broad allegations the complainant prayed to this Forum to allow his complaint and to direct the opposite party.-
1) To release the maturity amount of Rs. 22,807/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of maturity.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. The notice was accordingly issued to the opposite party which appeared through its counsel and filed its written version wherein various preliminary and legal objections were taken interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable as the present complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. As per record Mahender Kaur W/o Sh. Des Raj is a consumer and present complainant Jaspal Kumar is not a competent person as per law to file this complaint; that the opposite party is a real estate company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land/plot across the country; that the opposite party company did not receive any deposit from the complainant and it has received an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the company as well as the customer for sale and purchase of land/plot. It is pleaded that the opposite party PACL Ltd. enjoys the status of legal entity and as such it has right to sue its own liability. On merits, it is submitted that as per record registration No. U017026387 is in the name of Mahinder Kaur w/o Des Raj who deposited two installments of Rs. 440/- only with the opposite party for purchase of land, however the opposite party did not receive any deposit from the complainant rather the amount was received from the complainant as an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the company and the customer. It is submitted that Jaspal Kumar is not competent to file the present complaint and if Mahinder Kaur has any grievances she can claim from the opposite party. It has been denied that the complainant has suffered any mental agony and harassment given by the opposite party. The jurisdiction of District Forum has also been questioned by the opposite party. The opposite party has therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and has prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
3. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, statement of payment of installment Ex.C-2, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party has tendered affidavit of Manoj Kumar CSC Incharge Barnala Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for the parties addressed the arguments on the line of the averments and allegations contained in their respective pleadings and they have also referred to the relevant portion of evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. It is further necessary to add here that both the parties lead the evidence virtually on the line of the averments and allegations contained in their pleadings. Furthermore, learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of this Forum towards the document statement of installment Ex.C-2 and acknowledgment Ex.C-3 and submitted that, these documents have not rebutted by the opposite party. It was submitted that the opposite party has taken a specific plea that the complainant is not a bonafide consumer rather Mahinder Kaur wife of Sh. Des Raj is the customer. It was submitted that no such evidence to that extent has been adduced by the opposite party to nullify the claim of the complainant. More so mere denial in the written version of the opposite party would not negate the claim of the complainant.
6. We have noted this point that the complainant had claimed that he obtained the policy bearing No. U017026387 on 3.1.2007 to be matured on 3.1.2014 and this agreement bearing registration No. U017026387 has not been denied by the opposite party in the affidavit of Manoj Kumar CSC Incharge Barnala particularly paragraph 9 but denied in their written version.
The specific stand of the complainant is that the maturity amount as on 3.1.2014 was Rs. 22,807/- and the complainant deposited all the documents which were duly acknowledged by the opposite party and promised to make the payment of the maturity value within one month to which the opposite party failed to honour. The opposite party has taken a specific stand that it did not receive any deposit from the complainant rather the amount received from the complainant is an advance consideration for purchase of land/ plot. The opposite party further took the specific stand that the company never promised to pay any money to the complainant rather only promised a plot of land and in case the complainant/customer did not take the plot then the company was to arrange for the sale of the plot and the complainant/customer was to get the realized value of the plot.
7. As noted above the evidence of the parties is on the same line. Ex.C-2 is the statement of payment of installment and acknowledgment is Ex.C-3. The entirety of the evidence reveals that there is a specific and definite relationship between both the parties. The receipt of the amount has not only been proved on the record but has also been admitted by the opposite party. It is crystal on the file that the complainant purchased a policy No. U017026387 on 3.1.2007. It is further a notable point that this policy or agreement has not been placed on record by either of the party. The opposite party has admitted the receipt of the amount from the complainant not as a deposit but an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot. This piece of evidence further authenticates that the amount so deposited by the complainant stood duly received by the opposite party. The opposite party admittedly come with the plea that it promised a plot and in case the customer fails to receive the plot then the company was to dispose off the plot and the customer could get the realized value of the same. No evidence has come on the file that any plot was ever allotted to the complainant. The fact remains that the complainant had deposited this amount against registration No. U017026387, which is otherwise admitted.
8. Assumingly, there is no agreement or policy, even then the opposite party which has received the deposit from the complainant would have utilized the amount for its own benefits and in that way, the opposite party company cannot deprive of the complainant from any benefit. Any amount lying with any person in the shape of cash is presumed to fetch some interest and in the instant case the amount was being utilized for real estate.
9. It is admitted as well as evident that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been received by the opposite party. It is further a notable point that the opposite party has taken this plea that one Mahinder Kaur deposited two installments and the present complainant has not deposited any installment thus not a consumer. But no such evidence has been adduced by the opposite party rather the evidence is otherwise. The opposite party has not rebutted the evidence of the complainant, which clearly shows that the receipt Ex.C-2 is in the name of the present complainant. Neither the opposite party had paid the principal amount nor the interest nor the maturity amount. Apart from that the opposite party took the stand that it was to allot the plot to the customer and in case the customer is not interested in the plot then the realization value of the plot was to be paid to the customer. It is again necessary to add here that the opposite party has lead no evidence to the effect that any plot was allotted to the consumer more particular to the complainant or the complainant ever refused to receive the plot and if so any realized value of the plot so sold was ever paid to the complainant.
10. The whole transaction took place in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the allegations of the opposite party qua the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum are of no avail or substance. This Forum is of the considered view that no innocent person should suffer and must get the legitimate relief, which is required to be given under the legislation.
11. The opposite party has come up with the weak shield that its accounts have been freezed by the CBI and the matter is sub judice in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is further a notable point that no stay order has been placed on the record by the opposite party passed by any lawful authority. Even if the accounts of the opposite party are freezed, even then we feel that the opposite party cannot escape from its liability and the opposite party is duty bound to return the amount so received from the complainant.
12. This Forum is further of the considered view that the opposite party is bound to return the amount to the complainant from all its available sources and assets. Obviously, a consumer who has invested this amount with the opposite party would have a hope if not for high profit but at least a reasonable interest thereon as is given by the Nationalized Banks. Notably the dealing pertains to 3.1.2007. It is apparent and crystal on the record that the complainant would have tried his level best to get back his money. The complainant definitely would have suffered a mental agony and stress, which resulted due to the deficient services on the part of the opposite party. As the complainant has failed to get the proper relief at his own level that is why the complainant has approached this Forum through the instant complaint.
13. Thus, it has been proved that complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- as on 3.1.2007, which we treat as principal amount, therefore, this Forum is of the view that the complainant is entitled to claim the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. As such, this complaint deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. Accordingly, we order the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant alongwith simple interest at the rate of 9%per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 3.1.2007 till realization. We further order the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant being consolidated amount of compensation towards litigation expenses and mental agony.
14. This order of ours shall be complied within 60 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM:
Dated: 27th Day of May 2015
(Vandna Sidhu) (J.S. Khushdil) (Karnail Singh)
Member President Member
