Punjab

Sangrur

CC/485/2014

HARJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI S.S. PUNIA

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 485                 

                                                                     Instituted on:  02.09.2014

                                                                     Decided on:    24.03.2015

 

Harjit Singh aged 45 years son of Late Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of House No.468, Ward No.17, Near  Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Sangrur ( since deceased) through his LRs Surinder Kaur widow ii) Paramjit Singh ( son ) iii) Gurpreet Kaur ( daughter)  iv) Prabhjot Kaur  ( minor daughter) ( through her mother/ natural guardian Surinder Kaur) v)  Tej Kaur ( mother) of Harjit Singh deceased, All residents of House No.468, Ward No.17, Near Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.       PACL Limited 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302 004 through its  Director or authorized signatory. 

 

2.        PACL Limited Opposite Guga Marri, Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through Branch Manager.

      ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri S.S.Punia, 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.             Harjit Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he obtained policy bearing no. U107065950 from the OPs for a term of six years which was to be matured on 23.04.2014. Since the policy was to be matured on 23.04.2014, therefore the complainant deposited the policy papers with OP No.2 vide receipt dated 16.04.2014.  After the maturity date, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount of Rs.46200/-  but same was not released till date. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs but  no reply was received. 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.46200/- 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.15000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs. 15000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service,

iii)    OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as 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 as per order of the court 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-10 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 complainant, we find that the complainant had obtained a policy from the OPs for a term of six years and date of maturity was 23.04.2014 and  OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.46200/- 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, 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.46200/-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 24, 2015

 

 

 

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

                   Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>