| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 81 of 18-03-2015 Decided on 09-09-2015 Navneet Kumar aged about 38 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H. No. 32758, Street No. 3, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. …... Complainant Versus Manager cum office-in-charge, PACL India Limited, Branch Office cum Customer Service Centre, S.C.F. No. 12, Bharat Nagar, Near Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda. PACL India Limited,7th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001 through its Chairman cum Managing Director
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Santosh Garg, counsel for complainant For the opposite parties : Sh. Joginder Singh, AR of OPs. O R D E R M.P.Singh Pahwa, President This complaint has been filed by Navneet Kumar complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against PACL Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that under the representation of the agent of opposite parties, the complainant has entered into contract with the opposite parties and agreed to invest Rs. 6825/- with yearly rest for five years six months. The opposite parties agreed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant and offered to give a plot as security. The minimum amount as the return of the amount alongwith interest was agreed Rs. 54,550/-. The original agreement/registration No,. U018132865 dated 30-04-2009 (AD B 2136909) was handed over to opposite party No. 2 for repayment on maturity. It is pleaded that under the said agreement, the complainant paid five installments of Rs. 6825/- (cash) and 6th installment of Rs. 3413/- with the opposite parties. It is alleged that after the completion of the period of five years and six months, the complainant applied for repayment on maturity/termination of the agreement on dated 4-12-2014. The opposite parties assured that the amount due against the account of complainant alongwith interest will be paid within 30 days from the date of application, but the same has not been paid by the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that the complainant got issued legal notice and requested the opposite parties to pay amount alongwith interest, but the opposite parties did not bother to pay the same or reply to the legal notice. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 54,550/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 4-12-2014; Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 7500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through authorized representative Joginder Singh and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In written version, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that PACL Ltd. is neither the financial establishment nor non-banking financial company. It is not collecting/accepting deposit from the public by promising lucrative high rate of interest nor issuing any kind of policy, premium and maturity etc., It is Real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land/plot across the country and allots the land to its customer. The complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' in the 'Act'.Since perusal of complaint shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as defined U/S 2(d) and unfair trade practice U/S 2( g) of the 'Act', therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The company did not receive any deposit from the complainant. It only received advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties for sale and development of land/plot. The complainant's claim is based on the agreement executed between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, according to which the parties should invoke arbitration proceedings for the redressal of their grievances and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. That no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant entered into agreement bearing registration No. U018132865 with the opposite parties for purchase of land/plot unit and deposited as land consideration a sum of Rs. 37,538/- only with them. It is further pleaded that opposite parties never promised to pay any money to the complainant. They have promised plot of land and if he is not keen to take his plot, in that case opposite parties will arrange for sale of his plot and complainant will receive only estimated realizable value. It is further pleaded that due to dispute with SEBI and CBI, CBI has seized all the property documents and freezed bank accounts of opposite parties in criminal case. The opposite parties have approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the arbitrary orders of CBI. The complainant is fully aware that due to this reason, opposite parties are not refunding consideration amount. After controverting all others averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissed of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 28-07-2015 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-6), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-3) and acknowledgement (Ex. C-4). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of dated 14-08-2015 of Joginder Singh (Ex. OP-1/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his version as pleaded in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that his version is duly corroborated by the documents. Receipt Ex. C-2 proves the case of the complainant. This receipt was issued on 30-04-2009. As per this receipt the amount was to be paid in installments of Rs. 6825/- and on expiry i.e. 30-10-2014, the complainant was to get Rs. 54,550/-. In written version, the opposite parties have also not disputed the amount deposited by the complainant. In paragraph No. 3 in the written version, the opposite parties have admitted that complainant has deposited Rs. 37,538/-.Although the opposite parties have pleaded that this amount was deposited for land consideration, but no agreement is brought on file to prove that the amount deposited by complainant was for land consideration. The opposite parties have also not detailed which particular land was offered/allotted to the complainant. No document is produced on record to show that opposite parties were having any land which was to be offered/allotted to the complainant. Therefore, in such circumstances, the version of the complainant is to be accepted. The opposite parties were duty bound to refund the amount of Rs. 54,550/- after maturity. The opposite parties have failed to pay this amount, as such the complainant is entitled to penal interest on this amount @ 18% p.a. On the other hand, the AR of opposite parties has reiterated his version as pleaded in written reply and detailed above. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The complainant has claimed that he has deposited Rs. 37,538/- with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also not disputed this fact. As per complainant, the opposite parties were to refund total amount of Rs. 54,550/- after 30-10-2014. Admittedly, the opposite parties have not refunded this amount. In written version, the opposite parties have rather pleaded that due to dispute with SEBI and CBI, CBI has seized all the property/titled documents and freezed the bank accounts of opposite parties and complainant is fully aware that due to this reason, opposite parties are not refunding consideration amount. This pleading of the opposite parties also corroborates the version of the complainant that opposite parties were to refund the estimated amount on maturity and this amount is not refunded by them. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 2500/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 54550/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum to the complainant. The interest will be calculated from due date i.e. 30.10.2014 till realization. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 09-09-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh) (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member Member
| |
