DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                          Complaint no. 564                                                                                                 Instituted on:  23.09.2014

                                                          Decided on:    10.02.2015

Arun s/o Harian c/o Jagdambe Plastic Works Old Mandi Gali, Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

PACL India Limited, Opposite  H.D.F.C Bank Near Goyal Laboratory Dhuri Gate,  Sangrur through its Manager.    

      ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Raj Kumar Singla Advocate                          

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :     Shri Inderjit Ausht,  Advocate                     

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Arun, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he obtained the RD policy bearing no. U107100796 dated 05.02.2009 from the OP. The said policy was matured on 05.08.2014. After the maturity period on 05.08.2014 when the complainant approached the OP to release  the maturity amount of Rs.20160/-, the OP demanded several documents. Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to OP under an acknowledgment dated 25.08.2014 but after the passing of one month the complainant again approached the OP but the OP told the complainant that they will release the payment after ¾ months and did not disclose the reason. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to release the maturity amount of Rs.20160/- along with all other benefits and interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization,   

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up.  It is stated that M/s PACL  Limited is a registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and it is engaged in the real estate business and also in the  business of sale, purchase of agricultural land under certain schemes of fixed payment plan and installment payment plan etc. for which an agreement is executed  between the company and the customer and there is a specific clause in the agreement that any dispute pertaining to the said agreement will be referred to the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited the alleged amount for  purchasing the land.  It is submitted that due to dispute with SEBI, the accounts of the OPs have been seized  as per the order of Hon’ble courts and CBI due to  that reason  the OPs are unable to release the amount to the complainant. It is further submitted that the maturity amount as per record will be released by the OPs when the accounts of the OPs are released by the Hon’ble Courts and CBI. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has availed the services of OP by obtaining  RD policy  and on the maturity date the complainant submitted all the required documents to the OPs for releasing the maturity amount of Rs.20160/- but till date the OP has not released the same.

5.             On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that due to some dispute with SEBI the accounts of the OP have been seized as per order of the Hon’ble Court and CBI, so the OP is unable to release the maturity amount of the complainant. He further argued that the maturity amount as per record will be released by the OP when the accounts of the OP are released by the courts and CBI.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP has produced copy of judgment of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh namely Techno Combine Associate Vs.  Union of India and others, 1994 (2) CLT 51 ( U.P.)  wherein it has been held that where the civil suit or identical matter is pending before the Civil Court then  the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction but the learned counsel for the OP has not produced any document on the file which shows that any civil suit is pending between the parties before any civil court. Learned counsel for the OP has stated that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He has also produced a copy of the judgment of W.P. (Criminal) No.705 of 2014 namely  PACL  Limited Vs.  Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, decided on 06.05.2014 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. From the perusal of the same, we find that W.P.(CRL) 705 of 2014 and Crl.M.A. 5489 of 2014 have been disposed of with the directions that money lying in the accounts be transferred to the Registrar General of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and on receipt of the said amounts, the Registrar General will ensure that the same are kept in a nationalized bank in a fixed deposit initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter renewable from time to time. The petitioner PACL Limited was also permitted to deposit fresh amount of Rs.5000/- in each of the account so as to keep them operational and thereafter to carry on activities in the said bank accounts in accordance with law.  As such we feel that OPs have failed to produce any such judgment which shows that any civil suit is pending before any competent court of the jurisdiction.   We feel that the above cited judgments produced above by the learned counsel for the OP are not applicable in the present case.  Learned counsel for the OP has also produced another judgment of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh namely Superintendent Post Office, Muffasil Division, Ludhiana Vs.  Bhagwan Singh, 2002 (3) CLT 399 wherein it was held that  where F.I.R  has been lodged and enquiries are going on  then  the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.  But, in the instant case learned counsel for the OP has not produced  any copy of the F.I.R. Even the ruling cited above is pertaining  to the matter that the officer of the post office  had made fraudulent entries in the passbook of the complainant  and F.I.R. was registered by the OP against the delinquent official  and the case was against the official  who had helped  the complainant but  from the perusal of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court it reveals that the enquiries are pending against the present OP  before the CBI and those  are  for the benefits of the investors including the complainant. If we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the OP then the very purpose of the enquiries of the CBI and order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court will be defeated to benefit of the investors. 

7.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had obtained RD policy from OP under which the OP had to make the payment of Rs.20160/- to the complainant after maturity. The complainant has specifically stated that on 25.08.2014 he submitted all relevant documents to the OP vide receipt dated 21.08.2014 which is Ex.C-4 on record but OP has failed to repay the amount to him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has argued that OP  is a registered company under the Companies Act and engaged in the real estate business and also in the business of sale, purchase of agricultural land under certain schemes of Fixed payment plan and installment payment plan etc. for which an agreement  is executed between the company and the customer and there is a specific clause in the agreement that any dispute pertaining to  the said agreement will be referred to the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute.  Learned counsel for the OP further argued that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land to the answering respondent. But we feel that the argument of the learned counsel for the OP is not tenable because no such agreement as stated by the learned counsel for the OP has been placed on record. Further, no document has been produced by the OP that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant. We feel that with seize of accounts, the OP cannot escape from their liability and same still stands. Moreover, the OP has admitted in their reply that the OP is ready to make the payment to the complainant when their accounts are released by the Hon’ble Courts and CBI. The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court discussed above clearly shows that the OPs can carry on activities in their accounts.  As such, OP is liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties.

8.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.20160/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- being consolidated amount of compensation. 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

February 10, 2015.

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                           

  Member                    Member                       President