Punjab

Sangrur

CC/59/2015

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Hatinder Prashar

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                          Complaint no. 59

Instituted on:  04.02.2015

                                                                        Decided on:    05.06.2015

 

Chamkaur Singh son of Nahar Singh resident of  Village Balloh, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.                                                                      …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

PACL Limited, SCO No.10, 11,12 Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, Sangrur through its Manager.

             ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Hatinder Prashar, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Chamkaur Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on the request of OP, he opened an account bearing no. U107097436 for Rs.5330/- HLY on 9.1.2009 with OP for six years. The complainant had been depositing the installments regularly to the OP. The OP has to repay to the complainant after maturity period i.e. on 9.1.2015 an amount of Rs.96250/- immediately on the presentation of all the documents as required by the OP.  The complainant had submitted all the original documents on 14.01.2015 but he had not received the amount till date. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.96,250/- along with interest @12% per annum from the  date of submission of documents till payment,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses and also to pay Rs.1100/- as counsel fee.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, 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 and development of  agricultural land/  plot across  the country and allot the  land to the customer  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 stated that complainant entered into an agreement bearing registration number U107097436 with the OP for purchase of land unit and deposit Rs.62500- only  as an advance land consideration. It is submitted that OP never gave assurance to the complainant that land advance consideration will be refunded after prescribed period.  It is also submitted that  CBI  has  freezed the bank account of the PACL Limited  for which OP has approached the Hon’ble High Delhi High Court against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending  disposal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. So, the OP  is helpless to make refund/ payment of its customer and such delay in refund of the complainant  is neither intentional nor deliberately.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

4.             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 opened an account  bearing number U107097436 for Rs.5330/- HLY on 09.01.2009 and OP had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.96250/- and the complainant stated that he submitted all the required documents  with the OP 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 and development of agriculture land/plot across  the country and allot the land to the customer 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.  Second objection of the OP is that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land unit to the answering respondent. This 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, OP has not produced any document which could show that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP has argued that  the OP have approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court  against the arbitrary orders of the CBI which is pending disposal  before the Hon’ble High Court  and the matter was fixed for  hearing on 05.05.2015. Astonishingly, the OP has not produced any document/ order on record regarding the case filing/ pending with the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which provides information regarding actual/ factual position in the matter  before this Forum. Further, the OP has produced on record copy of letter of the bank of Baroda Ex.OP-2 in which two current accounts of the Sangrur Branch of the OPs had been freezed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, but we feel that with the freeze of accounts, the OP cannot escape from their liability and same still stands. As such, OP is liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties.

7.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.96250/-to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- being consolidated amount of compensation. 

8.             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

                June 5, 2015

 

 

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

Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-