DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 288/2014
Date of Institution : 19.12.2014
Date of Decision : 03.06.2015
Mithai Lal @ Mithari Lal son of Sh. Ram Udit, C/o Prem Soap Factory, Raikot Road, Jagraon, Tehsil Jagraon and District Ludhiana.
…Complainant
Versus
1. PACL India Ltd., Branch Office (Customer Service Centre), S.C.F 24, 22 Acre, Near Improvement Trust Office, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. PACL India Ltd., Corporate Office, 7th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh Advocate counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal Advocate counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri J.S. Khushdil : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI J.S. KHUSHDIL PRESIDENT):
This complaint has been filed by Mithai Lal @ Mithari Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the opposite parties supported by his affidavit and various documents as mentioned in para No. 6 of the complaint submitting therein that opposite party No. 1 is working under opposite party No. 2 being its business branch and is rendering services to the general public by offering the various investment scheme including Installment Payment Plan i.e. Recurring Deposit Plan. The opposite party No. 1 offered the Installment Payment Plan (Plan No. I-1) to the complainant and relying upon the same the complainant accepted the said plan. It was agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties that the complainant shall pay the installment of Rs. 1,400/- per quarter to the opposite party No. 1 for 5 years and 6 months and as a security the opposite parties shall register one plot of 600 Square Yards in the name of the complainant and at the end of the term (after 5 years and 6 months from the date of commencement of plan) the complainant would have an option to take Rs. 43,640/- as maturity amount from the opposite parties on deposit of the said registration letter to the opposite party No. 1. As per the representation of the opposite parties the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 1,400/- to the opposite party No. 1 as first installment vide receipt No. F0686713 dated 29.11.2008 at Barnala and accordingly the policy was commenced from 29.11.2008 vide registration No. U017094129 under Payment Plan No. I-1 for the term of 5 years and 6 months, which expired on 29.5.2014. The registration letter-cum-receipt of first installment was issued by the opposite party No. 1 in favour of the complainant. All the required installments of Rs. 1,400/- per quarter were being deposited by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 at Barnala. As the term of the policy was to be expired on 29.5.2014, therefore, the complainant opted to take Rs. 43,640/- as maturity amount and deposited back the original copy of said registration letter to the opposite party No. 1 on 26.5.2014 at its office at Barnala under the name of “Buy Back Letter” and the printed acknowledgment regarding the same was given to the complainant. On 26.5.2014, it was told by the opposite party No. 1 that the maturity amount of Rs. 43,640/- would be disbursed to the complainant within next 10 to 15 days. It is alleged that the said amount was not disbursed to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 till now despite repeated requests by the complainant and personal visits to the office of the opposite party No. 1 which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this dispute comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that the complainant suffered physical, mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience. Thus with these broad allegations the complainant prayed to this Forum to allow his complaint and to direct the opposite parties to disburse the amount of Rs. 43,640/- the maturity amount alongwith interest from 30.5.2014 and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing physical pain, mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss. Apart from that Rs. 10,000/- has also been claimed as litigation expenses.
2. The notice was accordingly issued to the opposite parties which appeared through their counsel and filed written version wherein various preliminary objections have been taken interalia that the complainant has intentionally and willfully not disclosed material facts, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the opposite party company deals with purchase and development of agriculture land and allotment of land/plot to its customer; that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties as defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant; 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; that claim of the complainant is based on the agreement executed between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement vide which parties should invoke arbitration proceedings for the redressal of their grievances as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 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, the identity of both the parties has not been disputed. In general the allegations of the complainant are denied. However, it has been admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant entered into an agreement bearing registration No. U017094129 with the opposite parties 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 admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 30,480/- with the opposite parties for purchase of land/plot. According to the version of the opposite parties the Central Bureau of Investigation has freezed the bank accounts of the opposite parties PACL Ltd in case Crime No. R.C.BD 1/2014/E/2004. The opposite parties approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the arbitrary order of Central Bureau of Investigation, which is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court and the matter is fixed for 27.2.2015. (As per affidavit the next date is 7.7.2015). In this way, the opposite parties are helpless to make payment to its customers, therefore, the delay on the part of the opposite parties is neither deliberate nor intentional rather due to the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties. The opposite parties never promised to pay any money to the complainant but promised to give a plot of land, however in case the customer was not keen to take the plot, in that case, the company was to arrange for the sale of his plot and accordingly the customer was to receive the estimated realized value. It has been denied that the complainant has suffered any mental agony and harassment given by the opposite parties. The jurisdiction of District Forum has also been questioned by the opposite party. The opposite parties have therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and have prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
3. In order to substantiate his case the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of registration letter-cum-receipt Ex.C-2, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C-3, copy of schedule of Installment Payment Plan Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties have 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.
6. We have noted this point that the complainant had claimed that he obtained the policy bearing No. U017094129 on 29.11.2008 to be matured on 29.5.2014 and this agreement bearing registration No. U017094129 has not been denied by the opposite parties in their written statement particularly paragraph 2. The specific stand of the complainant is that the maturity amount as on 29.5.2014 was Rs. 43,640/- and the complainant deposited all the documents which were duly acknowledged by the opposite party No. 1 and promised to make the payment of the maturity value within 10 to 15 days to which the opposite parties failed to honour. The opposite parties have taken a specific stand that they 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 parties 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. However, it was admitted that the complainant deposited Rs. 30,480/- with the opposite parties.
7. As noted above the evidence of the parties is on the same line. Ex.C-2 is the copy of registration letter-cum-receipt, acknowledgment is Ex.C-3 and copy of schedule Installment Payment Plan Ex.C-4. 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 parties. It is crystal on the file that the complainant purchased a policy No. U017094129 on 29.11.2008. It is further a notable point that this policy or agreement has been placed on record by the complainant. The opposite parties have admitted the receipt of the amount i.e Rs. 30,480/- 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 parties. The opposite parties admittedly come with the plea that they 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. U017094129 which is otherwise admitted.
8. Assumingly, there is no agreement or policy, even then the opposite parties which have 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 that a sum of Rs. 30,480/- has been received by the opposite parties. Neither the opposite parties had paid the principal amount nor the interest nor the maturity amount. Apart from that the opposite parties 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 parties have 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 parties qua the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum are of no avail or substance. The opposite parties have pleaded that there is an agreement executed between the parties where there is an arbitration clause for the redressal of the grievances of the parties. The Forum has noted that neither of the party has adduced or produced any agreement on the file to this extent and complainant only filed a copy of registration letter Ex.C-2 on the file in which nothing is mentioned to this extent. 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 parties have 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 parties passed by any lawful authority. Even if the accounts of the opposite parties are freezed, even then we feel that the opposite parties cannot escape from its liability and the opposite parties are duty bound to return the amount so received from the complainant.
12. This Forum is further of the considered view that the opposite parties are 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 parties 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 29.11.2008. 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 parties. 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. 30,480/- from 29.11.2008 to 29.5.2014 in shape of quarterly installments and we treat every installment as principal amount, therefore, this Forum is of the view that the complainant is entitled to claim the principal amount of each installment deposited in the shape of quarterly installments on different dates with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit of each installment till realization. As such, this complaint deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. Accordingly, we order the opposite parties to pay the principal amount of each installment deposited in the shape of quarterly installments on different dates with simple interest at the rate of 9%per annum from the date of deposit of each installment till realization. We further order the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- 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: 3rd Day of June 2015
(Vandna Sidhu) (J.S. Khushdil) (Karnail Singh)
Member President Member
