DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 389/2015
Date of Institution : 19.08.2015
Date of Decision : 15.02.2016
Raj Rani aged about 35 years wife of Sh. Narender Pal son of Sh. Amar Nath resident of Rayia Street, Rampura Phul.
…Complainant
Versus
1. PACL India Limited (Pearls), Registered Office 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004 through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director.
2. PACL India Limited (Pearls), 22 Acre Scheme, Barnala Through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. NK Garg counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal counsel for opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Raj Rani (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (in short as Act) against PACL India Limited and another (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to the opposite parties through fixed deposit on 30.6.2007 and it was agreed between them that the opposite parties will pay an estimated amount of Rs. 1,14,035/- on 30.6.2014 and the opposite parties issued a policy cum registration letter in this regard bearing No. U017041482.
3. It is further averred that the complainant in compliance of the terms and conditions submitted the registration letter cum policy in the office of the opposite party No. 2 for the release of Rs. 1,14,035/- on 10.7.2014 and a receipt was duly issued by the opposite party No. 2. Moreover the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the payment will be made within a few days and after some days the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No. 2. However, the Manager told the complainant that the amount will be paid on the next week. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 many a times but the payment was not made. Thus, it is alleged that it is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To make the payment as per agreement i.e. Rs. 1,14,035/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed a joint written statement in which they submitted that opposite party is a real estate company which is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land and development and construction of residential as well as commercial projects. In the present case the complainant had applied for a piece of land vide registration No. U017041482 dated 30.6.2007 and the complainant had duly executed an agreement with the company for the same. Secondly, present complaint does not fall under the purview of Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties as defined under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act. Thirdly, the complainant's claim is based upon the agreement executed between them and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement according to which parties should invoke arbitration proceedings and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Fourthly no cause of action has been arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint.
5. It is further submitted that as per record of opposite parties complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only with company against sale consideration of the plot for the aforesaid registration.
6. It is further submitted that Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against the opposite parties company M/s PACL Limited vide R.C. BD1/2014/E/0004 under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC on 19.2.2014 and pursuant to the same it has passed directions to the concerned banks for freezing of its bank accounts. The opposite party has filed a writ petition No. 705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the directions of CBI for de-freezing of bank accounts and vide order dated 6.5.2014 the Hon'ble High Court allowed de-freezing the bank accounts. However, thereafter CBI again freezed the bank accounts of opposite party company. Then company has filed an application bearing Crl. M.A. No. 12444/2014 in the aforesaid writ petition No. 705/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the said application is still pending. It is further averred that due to the facts and circumstances as referred to above the opposite party is helpless to make payment to its customers including the complainant till the disposal of the appeal by the SEBI Appellant Tribunal Bombay (SAT) and de-freezing of bank accounts by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hence it is alleged that there is no deficiency of service and cause of action.
7. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy deposit receipt Ex.C-2, copy of plan Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party has tendered affidavit of Varinder Singh CSC Incharge Barnala Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
10. Before adverting to the matter on merits, it is relevant to deal with objections raised by the opposite parties. Firstly, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant's claim is based upon the agreement executed between them 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 therefore being an exclusion clause in the agreement this fora is not competent to deal with the present complaint. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant contended that the jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred by Arbitration Clause. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that this fora has the jurisdiction to deal with this complaint notwithstanding any Arbitration Clause in the agreement.
11. In case titled Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Versus Kamlender Kashyap & Ors reported in I (2008) CPJ-404 (NC), it was observed that additional remedy is provided under Section 3 of the Act and jurisdiction of fora is not barred by Arbitration Clause. Further in case titled Pasumarthi S.N. Murthi (Dr.) Versus Nischint Constructions reported in I (2003) CPJ-399 (A.P.), it was observed that fora is at liberty to proceed with matters rather to relegate to arbitration since the Act intends to relieve consumers of cumbersome arbitration proceedings. Keeping in view the citations as referred to above this complaint is maintainable in this Forum.
12. The other objection taken by the opposite party is that Central Bureau of Investigation has freezed the bank accounts of opposite parties in case Crime No. R.C. BD1/2014/E/2004 and opposite parties have already approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the orders of the CBI and the matter is pending in the said Hon'ble High Court. In view of this the matter is subjudice and this Forum is not competent to proceed with the present matter till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. This contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is not tenable. Firstly, opposite parties have not placed on record any stay order from any Competent Authority restraining this Forum not to proceed further. In the absence of any document in this regard it cannot be held that the matter is subjudice.
13. However, in case Adelkar Pratibha B (Mrs) And others Versus Shivajit Estate Livestock And Farms reported in II (2015) CPJ-221 (NC) it is held by the Hon'ble National Commission in para 7 that “Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a Civil remedy whereas prosecution before and conviction by designated court is criminal remedy available to victim of fraudulent default, complaint maintainable.”
14. Now coming to the case on merits, firstly it is to be seen whether the complainant has paid the amount in question. In her affidavit Ex.C-1 the complainant has specifically stated that she paid Rs. 50,000/- through fixed deposit on 30.6.2007 and the opposite parties promised to pay Rs. 1,14,035/- on 30.6.2014 i.e. on maturity date. In reply filed by the opposite parties there is no specific denial regarding the deposit made by the complainant. Even in para No. 9 of the affidavit Ex.OP-1 filed by the opposite parties it is clearly mentioned that the complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the company. In the last para of this affidavit it is specifically mentioned by the opposite parties that the customer's money is safe and they are committed to its customers to fulfill their commitments. It further has stated that the opposite party company is helpless to make payment in view of these circumstances. Apart from the affidavit it is also relevant to refer the copy of the buy back letter Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant deposited the policy documents with the opposite party No. 2 on 10.7.2014 and copy of plan Ex.C-3 is also issued by the opposite parties which is un-rebutted shows the maturity amount as Rs. 1,14,000/- and maturity date as 30.6.2014. In fact the case of the complainant is un-rebutted qua the deposit made by the complainant as well as the maturity value and maturity date. The plea of the opposite parties that the complainant has deposited the said amount against sale consideration is untenable. The opposite parties have not placed on record any such agreement or the ownership of any land/plot. Moreover, the onus is upon the opposite parties to prove this plea which they miserably failed to prove it. It is also worth mentioning here that the complainant is a small depositor and has invested her hard earned money for earning her livelihood. Law is crystal clear that no innocent person should suffer or lose his/her hard earned money from any powerful businessman, builder, real estate company or financial institution.
15. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 1,14,035/- to the complainant. Since the amount remained with the opposite parties, who have earned interest on it, therefore, the opposite parties are also directed to pay interest to the complainant on this maturity amount of Rs. 1,14,035/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 30.6.2014 till realization. The opposite parties have caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, therefore, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1,100/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
15th Day of February 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
