Punjab

Sangrur

CC/441/2015

Nirmala Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 441                                                                                        

                                                                   Instituted on:  08.06.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    01.10.2015

 

Nirmala Rani  aged about 45 years wife of Rakesh Kumar, resident of Preet Colony, Backside new Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh,  Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     PACL Ltd.  22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur-302004 through its Director or authorized signatory.

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

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri G.S.Shergill, 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.             Nirmala Rani, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she obtained a policy bearing no. U107111264 dated 30.04.2009 for the term of five years six months. The complainant had been depositing Rs.9100/- per year and the maturity value of the policy is Rs.72733/-. After the maturity date, the complainant approached the OP no.2 and requested him to release the maturity amount and submitted all the relevant documents under acknowledgement dated 27.10.2014 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.72733/- 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 Rs.10000/-  on account of 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, it is stated that complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for purchase of land unit and  complainant deposited  the alleged amount 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 has also been submitted that  CBI  has  freezed the bank account of the PACL Limited  for which OPs have 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 OPs  are 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 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 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 bearing number U107111264 dated 30.04.2009  for the term of five years six months and  OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.72733/- 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-3 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.72733/-to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

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

                October 1, 2015

 

 

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

Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-