GEETA RANI filed a consumer case on 04 Mar 2015 against PACL LTD. in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/491/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Mar 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 491
nstituted on: 02.09.2014
Decided on: 04.03.2015
Geeta Rani wife of Rishi Pal resident of Near Gurudwara Namdev Ji, Sunam, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. PACL India Ltd. SCO 10-12, Outside Dhuri Gate, Near HDFC Bank Limited Sangrur through its Manager.
2. PACL India Ltd. 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004 through its General Manager/M.D.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
K.C.Sharma, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Geeta Rani, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she obtained policy bearing no. U107099992 dated 30.01.2009 which was to be matured on 30.07.2014. After the maturity date, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount and submitted all the relevant documents under acknowledgement dated 09.08.2014 but the OPs did not release the maturity amount till date. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to make/ release the maturity amount of Rs.54550/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
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, 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, deposit of amount for purchasing the land by the complainant is admitted. It is further submitted that the accounts of the OPs have been seized by the C.B.I. and due to that reason the OPs are unable to release the amount to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs havetendered 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 complainant, we find that the complainant had obtained a policy from the OPs which was to be matured on 30.07.2014 and OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.54550/- and the complainant stated that he submitted all the required documents including original policy with the OPs but OPs have 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, 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. Second objection of the OPs is that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land to the answering respondent. It is denied by OPs that the complainant ever approached the OPs but it has been admitted by the OPs that the complainant had deposited the above said amount. The argument of the learned counsel for the OPs is not tenable because no such agreement as stated by the learned counsel for the OPs has been placed on record. Further, no document has been produced by the OPs that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant. However, the OPs have 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 have been freezed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, but we feel that with the freeze of accounts, the OPs cannot escape from their liability and same still stands. As such, OPs are liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties.
5. So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.54550/-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.
6. 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
March 4, 2015
( Sarita Garg) ( K.C.Sharma) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
o:p>
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.