BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case No.: 47 of 2015.
Date of Instt.: 10.3.2015.
Date of Order: 15.09.2016.
Vikash Kumar, aged 37 years son of Shri Nand Lal, resident of House No.149/1, Ward No.6, Behind Police Station, Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. PACL India Ltd., SCF No.39, CC-II, Near Stadium, Anaj Mandi, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its C.S.C. Incharge.
2. PACL India Ltd., Corporate Office 7th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory/ Manager.
...Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. S.B. Lohia, President.
Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member
Present: Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte vide order dated 28.4.2016.
ORDER:-
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 brought by the complainant against the opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited. It has been averred by the complainant that his mother Smt. Shashi Prabha had fixed deposited Rs.50,000/- under cash down payment plan with the op no.1 on 20.7.2007 and complainant was made nominee. The date of maturity of the fixed deposit was 20.7.2010 and its maturity value was Rs.1,14,035/-. The mother of the complainant died on 9.7.2011. On 5.8.2014, the complainant submitted the requisite papers to op no.1 for payment of the maturity amount but the ops have failed to make payment despite his several requests and visits. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, ops appeared and resisted the complaint by filing reply. However, when the case was fixed for evidence of ops, none appeared on their behalf and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and document Ex.C2.
4. Heard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.13301/2015 titled as Subrata Bhattacharya & Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India with civil appeals Nos. 13319, 13394 and 13410 of 2015 has passed an order on 2.2.2016, the relevant paras of which are reproduced as under:-
“3) The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee.
7) The methodology with regard to recovery of amount by sale of the land and disbursement of the amount to the investors shall be overseen by the Members of the Committee.
12) The amount, which is lying in the bank accounts of the Company and other cash belonging to the Company shall be released in favour of SEBI so that it can be used either for disbursement in favour of the investors or for incurring necessary expenditure. If any amount has been deposited by the Company or by its Directors or by any other person on behalf of the Company in any Court, the same shall be released in favour of the SEBI, who shall have a separate account so as to deal with the same. The Committee shall also decide as to whether the staff of the Company should be continued or relieved.
13) The decision with regard to sale of property of the company by the Committee shall not be interfered with by any Court.”
5. From the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it emerges out that matters pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi relating to PACL were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Committee under the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court has already seized of the matter in question. In view of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the complainant has filed the present complaint as his mother invested the amount with ops being an investor, as such, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to direct the company to pay to the complainant, the amount so deposited with the company, more so when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to constitute a committee, who will refund the amount to the investors after getting the sale proceeds of the property of the company. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this Forum is unable to pass an executable order against the opposite parties in view of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, we dispose of the complaint accordingly, with liberty to the complainant to file/seek his claim/relief before the competent committee as constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.15.09.2016
(S.B.Lohia)
President,
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
(R.S.Panghal)
Member
