BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                            Complaint No.: 191 of 2015.                             Date of Instt.: 07.09.2015.                                                Date of Decision: 21.01.2016.

Rajesh Kataria son of Madan Lal Kataria, resident of Mohalla Ram Niwas, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehabad.                                                          

                                                                   …Complainant.

                             Versus

Branch Manager, PACL Limited, Near Wadhwa Hospital, Model Town, Fatehabad.

                                                                   ...Opposite Party.

                             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer                             Protection Act, 1986.

Before:                 Smt. Pushpa Mehta, Presiding Member.                     Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member.

Present:                Sh. Rajesh Gandhi, counsel for the complainant           Sh. Raman Sardana, counsel for the opposite party.                                    

Order by Sh. R.S.Panghal, Member:

                             The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.

2.                          It is stated in the complaint that complainant obtained a policy from the opposite party which was started on 11.08.2008. The complainant out of his hardship saving deposited Rs.1750/- quarterly under I.P.P. Plan for a period of five years and six months vide account No.U038098526 with the opposite party and on maturity, the amount of Rs.54550/- was to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party. The last installment was to be paid on 20.01.2014 and its maturity date was 11.02.2014. It is further stated that in proof of deposit, the opposite party issued registration letter in favour of the complainant by duly mentioning the maturity value of the registration and date of maturity. It is further stated that after the date of maturity, the opposite party did not make the payment despite several visits and requests of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  The complainant is entitled to maturity value of Rs.54,550/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till actual realization from the opposite party. He is also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                          Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed its reply in which several preliminary objections such as cause of action and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the opposite party is a real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and development of Agriculture land/plot across the country and regarding this an agreement was executed between the parties.  There is an arbitration clause in the agreement and according to which the matter/dispute shall be settled in accordance with the arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It has been further submitted that the opposite party did not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received was an advance consideration for the purchase of land/plot and the same is received as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties.  The Central Bureau of Investigation has freezed the Bank accounts of the opposite party and now the matter is fixed for 19.1.2016, therefore, the opposite party is helpless to make the payment of its customers and as such the delay in making the payment is neither intentional nor deliberate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          Both the parties have adduced their evidence. The complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and document as Annexure C2. On the other hand, the opposite party has tendered affidavit as Ex.RW1. Evidence of both the parties have been closed.

5.                          Arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the documents placed on the file have also been perused carefully.

6.                          It is established on the case file that the complainant deposited Rs.1750/- quarterly with the opposite party vide registration No.U038098526. The date of commencement of plan was 11.08.2008, the last installment was to be paid on 20.1.2014 and date of maturity was 11.02.2014. It is proved on record that complainant has deposited a total amount of Rs.38,500/- with the opposite party during the period of five years and six months in 22 quarterly installments of Rs.1750/- each and on maturity, an amount of Rs.54,550/- was to be paid to the complainant by the opposite party as is evident through Annexure C2.  It is also not disputed that the opposite party has not made the payment to the complainant even after maturity. The plea taken by the counsel for the opposite party that the matter should have been referred to the Arbitrator for redressal has not enough force to satisfy this Forum because it is the prerogative of the complainant to get redressed his grievance as per his/her wishes and the opposite party cannot take the shelter of this by saying that the matter should have been sent to the arbitrator for redressal. On this point reliance can be taken from case laws titled as National Seeds Corporation Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. II (2012) SLT 51=I,   Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. Unitech Limited III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC),  Bhairathan Vs. HCL Infosystems Limited and others  2007 (1) CPJ 319  and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. PV Krishna Reddy, 2009 (1) CPJ 99 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission has held that Section 8-Additional  remedy- Arbitrator Clause-Existence of Arbitration Clause in agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Consumer Forum, which is an additional remedy under CP Act and in case of deficiency in services rendered to him by service provider as adoption of unfair trade practice by him.

7.                          The opposite party has taken another plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the parties have entered into an agreement and as per agreement, only the Civil Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The submission of learned counsel for the opposite party in this regard being devoid of merit is not accepted as in case titled as Associated Road Carriers Ltd. Vs. Kamlender Kashyap and Ors., 2008 (2) CLT 36 (NC) it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that “a clause of Jurisdiction, by way of an Agreement, between the parties, could not be made applicable to the consumer complaints, filed before the Consumer Foras, as the Foras are not the Courts and complaint could be filed at a place, where a part cause of action arose, according to Sections 11/17 of the Act.” The said authority is fully applicable to the present case. In the present case, since the payment under the scheme was made at Fatehabad by the complainant, so this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The material available on the case file clearly indicates that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and it cannot take the shelter of the plea that its account has been freezed in another case by the CBI. Moreover, no document/ evidence has been produced in this regard by the opposite party. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the complaint deserves acceptance. We order accordingly. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.54,550/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of maturity till realization of the amount. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- in lump sum as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM                                                               Dt.21.01.2016

 (Pushpa Mehta)                     Presiding Member, District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(R.S.Panghal)                                                                                                  Member

Present:                Sh. Rajesh Gandhi, counsel for the complainant           Sh. Raman Sardana, counsel for the opposite party.                                    

                               Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, present complaint is allowed.  File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED

Dt.21.1.2016       

(Pushpa Mehta)               Presiding Member

(R.S.Panghal)                                                                            Member