DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 511 Instituted on: 02.09.2014
Decided on: 05.02.2015
Rudhar aged 8 years minor son of Shri Rajan Kapil through and under the guardianship of his father Rajan Kapil/ natural guardian, resident of 144, New Partap Nagar, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. PACL Limited 22, 3rd 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 Sukhwinder Singh Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
K.C.Sharma, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Rudhar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he obtained a policy bearing number U107045229 for the term of seven years from the OPs and the same was to be matured on 03.08.2014. The OPs were bound to make the payment of Rs.82600/- after maturity. On 19.08.2014 the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the OP No.2 for release of maturity amount but till date the OPs have not made the payment. In this manner, the OPs are harassing the complainant who deposited the premiums regularly for seven years and the delay in maturity payment amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 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 the maturity amount of Rs.82600/- 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.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- 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 admitted that the complainant deposited the alleged amount for purchasing the land. It is submitted that due to dispute with SEBI, the accounts of the OPs have been seized as per the order of Hon’ble courts and CBI due to that reason the OPs are unable to release the amount to the complainant. It is further submitted that the maturity amount as per record will be released by the OPs when the accounts of the OPs are released by the Hon’ble Courts and CBI. 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 documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has availed the services of OPs by obtaining a policy for the term of seven years and after seven years on the date of maturity the complainant submitted all the required documents to the OPs for releasing the maturity amount of Rs.82600/- but till date the OPs have not released the same.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that due to some dispute with SEBI the accounts of the OPs have been seized as per order of the Hon’ble Court and CBI, so the OPs are unable to release the maturity amount of the complainant. He further argued that the maturity amount as per record will be released by the OPs when the accounts of the OPs are released by the courts and CBI.
6. Learned counsel for the OPs has produced copy of judgment of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh namely Techno Combine Associate Vs. Union of India and others, 1994 (2) CLT 51 ( U.P.) wherein it has been held that where the civil suit or identical matter is pending before the Civil Court then the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction but the learned counsel for the OPs has not produced any document on the file which shows that any civil suit is pending between the parties before any civil court. Learned counsel for the OPs has stated that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He has also produced a copy of the judgment of W.P. (Criminal) No.705 of 2014 namely PACL Limited Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, decided on 06.05.2014 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. From the perusal of the same, we find that W.P.( CRL) 705 of 2014 and Crl.M.A. 5489 of 2014 have been disposed of with the directions that money lying in the accounts be transferred to the Registrar General of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and on receipt of the said amounts, the Registrar General will ensure that the same are kept in a nationalized bank in a fixed deposit initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter renewable from time to time. The petitioner PACL Limited was also permitted to deposit fresh amount of Rs.5000/- in each of the account so as to keep them operational and thereafter to carry on activities in the said bank accounts in accordance with law. As such we feel that OPs have failed to produce any such judgment which shows that any civil suit is pending before any competent court of the jurisdiction. We feel that the above cited judgments produced above by the learned counsel for the OPs are not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for the OPs has also produced another judgment of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh namely Superintendent Post Office, Muffasil Division, Ludhiana Vs. Bhagwan Singh, 2002 (3) CLT 399 wherein it was held that where F.I.R has been lodged and enquiries are going on then the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. But, in the instant case learned counsel for the OPs has not produced any copy of the F.I.R. Even the ruling cited above is pertaining to the matter that the officer of the post office had made fraudulent entries in the passbook of the complainant and F.I.R. was registered by the OPs against the delinquent official and the case was against the official who had helped the complainant but from the perusal of the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court it reveals that the enquiries are pending against the present OPs before the CBI and those are for the benefits of the investors including the complainant. If we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs then the very purpose of the enquiries of the CBI and order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court will be defeated to benefit of the investors.
7. 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 from the OPs under which the OP had to make the payment of Rs.82600/- to the complainant after maturity. The complainant has specifically stated that on 19.08.2014 he submitted all relevant documents to the OP vide receipt dated 19.08.2014 which is Ex.C-5 on record but OPs has failed to repay the amount to him. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP 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. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that the complainant had deposited the said amount for purchasing the land to the answering respondent. But we feel that the argument of the learned counsel for the OP 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. We feel that with seize of accounts, the OPs cannot escape from their liability and same still stands. Moreover, the OPs have admitted in their reply that the OPs are ready to make the payment to the complainant when their accounts are released by the Hon’ble Courts and CBI. The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court discussed above clearly shows that the OPs can carry on activities in their accounts. As such, OPs are liable to return the amount as agreed between the parties.
8. So, in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.82600/-to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- being consolidated amount of compensation.
9. 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.
February 5, 2015.
( Sarita Garg) ( K.C.Sharma) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
BBS/-
