Punjab

Sangrur

CC/391/2015

Paramjit - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rattan Verma

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   

                                                                   Complaint no. 391                                                                                              

                                                                   Instituted on:  03.06.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    07.09.2015

 

Paramjeet son of Radhe Sham resident of  H.No.263, near Punjab & Sindh Bank, Tower Wali Building, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     PACL Limited, SCO No.10,11,12 Kaula Park, Near Hot Chop Hotel, 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 Rattan Verma, 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.             Paramjeet, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the advice of OP No.1, he opened an account bearing reg. no. U107121179 for Rs.1000/- per month with OP and deposited twelve installments. The OPs had to repay this amount to the complainant after maturity period, which has already expired, on the presentation of all the documents as required by the OPs.  The complainant had submitted all the documents on 23.03.2015 but he 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.12000/- along with interest @18% 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.2200/- as litigation expenses and also to pay Rs.5500/- 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 with the OP 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 and Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents 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 been depositing an amount of Rs.1000/- per month with OPs and had deposited total  twelve installments and OPs had to repay this amount to the complainant after maturity period as per document Ex.C-5 on record. The complainant has also stated that on 23.03.2015 he submitted all the 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 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 document has been produced by the OPs showing that they have purchased any land for allotment to the complainant.  However, the OPs have stated  that  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. 

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.12000/-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/- as  compensation on account of mental pain and harassment.  We also order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount 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.

September 7, 2015.

 

 

 

 

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

Member                    Member                       President

 

 

BBS/-