Punjab

Sangrur

CC/652/2014

Harjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Hatinder Prashar

13 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 652

Instituted on:  15.12.2014

                                                                     Decided on:    13.05.2015

 

Harjeet Kaur w/o Jasvir Singh son of S. Joginder Singh resident of H.No.B-350, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.                                                    …. Complainant.   

                                         Versus

 

1.     PACL Limited, Opp. HDFC Bank, near Goyal Laboratory Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     PACL Limited, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur through DGM Operation.

3.     PACL Limited 7^th Floor Gopaldas Bhawan, 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through Executive Director.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Hatinder Prashar, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :     Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Harjeet Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OPs, she opened an account bearing no. U107053751 for Rs.7500/- CDPP on 30.11.2007. The OPs have to repay to the complainant after maturity period an amount of Rs.17,105/- immediately on the presentation of all the documents as required by the OPs.  The complainant had submitted all the documents on 01.12.2014 but she had not received the 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 the payment of Rs.17105/- along with interest @12% per annum till payment,  

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses and also to pay Rs.2200/- 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 U107053751 with the OPs for purchase of land unit and deposit Rs.7500/- only with OPs 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 OPs 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 OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 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 opened  an account  bearing number U107053751 for Rs.7500/- CDPP on 30.11.2007 and OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.17105/- and the complainant stated that he submitted all the required documents  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 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 OPs 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 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 which show that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.

6.             Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that  the OPs 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 19.12.2014  and thereafter the matter was adjourned to  27.02.2015. Astonishingly, the OPs have 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 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 had 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.

7.             So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.17105/-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 13, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)                                   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                               

      Member                                               President

 

 

BBS/-