Punjab

Sangrur

CC/653/2014

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Shergill

06 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 653

                                                                     Instituted on:  15.12.2014

                                                                     Decided on:    06.05.2015

 

Daljit Singh son of Late Sh. Sarup Singh resident of  H. No.303 Ward No.2 (A) Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri,  District Sangrur.                                                     

…. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

PACL India Limited, SCO 10-12, Outside Dhuri Gate, Opposite Near HDFC Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

   ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri G.S.Shergill, 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.             Daljit Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that OP allured the public to make total payment of Rs.50,000/-  in yearly installments as per one plan of various plans and insured return of Rs.27000/-, total Rs.77000/-  approximately after six years. The complainant has obtained a policy bearing number U107072004 dated 02.06.2008  from the OP which was to be matured on 02.06.2014.  The  complainant had submitted all the documents including original policy with  the OP under acknowledgment dated 24.06.2014.  In the last week of August 2014, the complainant again approached the OP and requested to release the maturity amount but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Thereafter the complainant requested the OP number of times to release the maturity amount of the said policy to him but all in vain. 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.77000/-  alongwith all other benefits and interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,

ii)   OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and 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 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 U107072004 with the OP for purchase of land unit and deposit Rs.52960/- only with OP for purchase of land/plot unit. It is further stated that the OP does not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received from the complainant is an advance consideration for purchase of land unit.  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-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have 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 obtained a policy from the OP which was to be matured on 02.06.2014 and  OP had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.77000/- 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 OPs 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, no document has been produced by the OP which show that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

5.             Another aspect of the case is that the OP has asserted that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.52960/- with them  for purchase of land/plot unit whereas the complainant in his complaint has  sought a direction against the OP to  release the maturity amount of Rs.77000/- along with other benefits and interest. Surprisingly, the complainant has not produced any document on record which could show that he has deposited the full/ total amount with the OP upto the maturity period.

6.             Learned counsel for the OP has argued that  the OP has 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 19.12.2014  and thereafter the matter was adjourned to  27.02.2015. 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 OP 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, OPs are liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties.

7.             So, in view of the above discussion we find that the complainant has failed to prove that he has deposited the full amount with the OP upto the maturity period. So, he is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.52960/- which was admitted  by the OP. We allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.52960/-(as admitted by the OP deposited with it) to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further order the OPs 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

                May 6, 2015

 

 

 

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

  Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-