DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 194/2015
Date of Institution : 16.07.2015
Date of Decision : 26.10.2015
Ravinder Sharma aged about 19 years son of Kamlesh Kumar, resident of VPO Johlan, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.
…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. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant
Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Ravinder Sharma (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred 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. 15,000/- in cash through installments from 8.7.2008 with the opposite parties and it was agreed between them that the opposite parties will pay an estimated amount of Rs. 23,100/- to the complainant on 8.7.2014 and the opposite parties issued a policy cum registration letter in this regard bearing No. U017079455.
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 the estimated value of Rs. 23,100/- on 7.10.2014 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 on the next week. After few days the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 for collecting the said amount but they linger on the matter. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 many a times but the payment was not made. Thus, it was alleged that it is the case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties.-
1) To make payment as per agreement of Rs. 23,100/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation 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 and 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. U017079455 dated 8.7.2008 and he was duly executed an agreement with the company for the same. Secondly, the complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency in service as defined under Section 2 (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 records of the opposite parties the complainant deposited Rs. 15,840/- with the company against sale consideration for the aforesaid registration. The complainant has intended to discontinue the agreement and to get refund of his amount which the company has agreed to make as per terms and conditions of the agreement.
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 freezed the bank accounts of the opposite parties and they already approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the orders of the CBI through writ petition No. 705/2014 for de-freezing of bank accounts and Hon'ble High Court allowed de-freezing of bank accounts vide order dated 6.5.2014 but CBI again freezed the bank accounts of opposite parties and company again filed an application bearing Crl. M.A. No. 12444/2014 in the said writ petition No. 705/2014 which is still pending. It is further averred that due to this reason the opposite parties are helpless to make refund/payment to its customers including the complainant till the disposal of appeal by the SEBI and de-freezing of bank accounts by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hence this is no deficiency of service and cause of action. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copy of policy deposit receipt dated 7.10.2014 alongwith 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 preliminary 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 second preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complainant has no cause of action as the opposite parties had not received any deposit from the complainant as it only received advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the conditions of the agreement. However this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is untenable as no agreement or document has been placed on record to indicate that the deposit was received by them as advance for purchase and development of land/plot. The complainant has placed on record copy of receipt alongwith plan Ex.C-3 acknowledgment issued by the opposite party dated 7.10.2014 indicating the deposit of the original copy of registration letter to the opposite party under the name of buy back letter. The complainant has also placed on record photocopy of plan showing the maturity value is Rs. 23,100/-. On the other hand the opposite parties have not rebutted these documents and moreover these documents have been issued by the opposite parties. Therefore, by stretch of any imagination the opposite parties cannot take the plea that the amount was an advance for purchase and development of the plot only and the complainant was not having any right to ask for the refund of this amount alongwith interest.
13. In case titled Y. Kanaka Reddy Versus Smt. D. Lakshmamma & Ors. Reported in I (2003) CPJ-232 (NC), it was observed that when the amount deposited under scheme and lumpsum payable and promised amount not paid then it was observed that deficiency in service proved and opposite party was held liable to refund deposited amount with interest.
14. The third objection taken by the opposite party is that Central Bureau of Investigation has freezed the bank accounts of the opposite parties in case Crime No. R.C. BD1/2014/E/2004 and the 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, the opposite parties have not placed on record any stay order from any Competent Authority restraining this Forum not to proceed further. Moreover, the opposite parties have not placed on record any orders of the CBI or Hon'ble Delhi High Court, so as this Forum may be in a position to assess the gravity of the proceedings and the consequential effects upon the proceedings pending in this Fora. In the absence of any document in this regard it cannot be held that the matter is subjudice.
15. Now coming to the case on merits, firstly it is to be seen whether the complainant has paid the amount in question. To support his case the complainant has specifically stated in his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 that he paid Rs. 15,000/- in cash to the opposite parties through monthly installments of Rs. 220/- from 8.7.2008 and the opposite parties promised to pay Rs. 23,100/- on 8.7.2014 i.e. on maturity date. There is no specific denial regarding this deposit by the opposite parties in the written version filed by them. Even in para No. 4 of the affidavit Ex.OP-1 filed by the opposite parties it is clearly mentioned that the complainant entered into an agreement bearing registration No. U017079455 on 8.7.2008 with the opposite parties for purchasing of land unit and deposited Rs. 15,840/- with the opposite parties. In the last para of this affidavit it is clearly mentioned that the answering opposite parties are helpless to make refund of their customers and such delay is beyond their control. Apart from the affidavit it is also relevant to refer the copy of the buy back letter and plan Ex.C-3 which shows that the complainant deposited the policy documents with the opposite party No. 2 on 7.10.2014 and copy of plan shows that on deposit of Rs. 15,000/- through monthly installments of Rs. 220/- for 72 months the estimated value at the end shown as Rs. 23,100/-. Thus the plea of the complainant regarding the payment of Rs. 15,000/- through monthly installments which has become due on 8.7.2014 to the value of Rs. 23,100/- has been proved. To contradict this plea the opposite parties have not filed any document. Only affidavit Ex.OP-1 clearly shows that the opposite parties never denied the receiving of deposit from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 15,840/- but has also showed helplessness in making refund of the same due to pending proceedings. Moreover, the plan which is part of Ex.C-3 was issued by the opposite parties and therefore the genuineness of the same cannot be questioned. In the absence of any contrary evidence it cannot be said that the maturity value has not become Rs. 23,100/-. It is also worth mentioning here that the complainant is a small depositor and has invested his hard earned money for earning his 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.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of the considered opinion that the opposite parties are bound to refund the amount to the complainant from all its available sources and assets. It has been proved and even admitted by the opposite parties in their written version that the complainant deposited Rs. 15,840/- with the opposite parties and the maturity amount was due on 8.7.2014 to the tune of Rs. 23,100/-. As we have already held that the opposite party company is bound to return the promised amount, therefore, the present complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 23,100/- 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. 23,100/- at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 8.7.2014 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. 3,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,100/- 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. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
26th Day of October 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
