Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/359/2015

Birbal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                                           Complaint No.: 359 of 2015.                                                                               Date of Instt.: 21.12.2015.                                                  Date of Decision: 01.07.2016.                                   

Birbal son of Sh. Bagrawat, resident of village Bhana, Tehsil Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.                                                    

                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. PACL India Limited, Near Wadhwa Hospital, Model Town, Fatehabad, Tehsil & Distt. Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Director PACL Limited, Gopal Dass Bhawan, 7^th Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

                                   

                                                                                    ...Opposite Parties.

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

Before:                      Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.                                                       Sh. Ranbir Singh Panghal, Member.

Present:                      Sh. Manoj Saneja, counsel for the complainant.                                                 Sh. Raman Sardana, counsel for the opposite parties.                            

ORDER:-

                                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 brought by the complainant against the opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited. It has been averred in the complaint that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.62,563/- in installments with the opposite parties as ops launched a plan for a period of five years and six months and on maturity, an amount of Rs.90,920/- was to be paid to the complainant by ops. According to the complainant after maturity of the said plan, the opposite parties have failed to make any payment to the complainant despite his several requests and visits. As such, he is entitled to the above said amount alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity besides compensation of Rs.8,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

2.                                 Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel but did not file any reply. Learned counsel for ops stated at bar that case may be decided on the basis of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.2.2016.                                 

3.                               Heard. In this complaint, it is not in dispute that the complainant Birbal is one of the investors who has made investment with the opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.13301/2015 titled as Subrata Bhattacharya & Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India with civil appeals Nos.  13319, 13394 and 13410 of 2015 has passed an order on 2.2.2016, the relevant paras of which are reproduced as under:-

“3) The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee.

7) The methodology with regard to recovery of amount by sale of the land and disbursement of the amount to the investors shall be overseen by the Members of the Committee.

12) The amount, which is lying in the bank accounts of the Company and other cash belonging to the Company shall be released in favour of SEBI so that it can be used either for disbursement in favour of the investors or for incurring necessary expenditure. If any amount has been deposited by the Company or by its Directors or by any other person on behalf of the Company in any Court, the same shall be released in favour of the SEBI, who shall have a separate account so as to deal with the same. The Committee shall also decide as to whether the staff of the Company should be continued or relieved.

13) The decision with regard to sale of property of the company by the Committee shall not be interfered with by any Court.”

 

4.                                 From the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it emerges out that matters pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi relating to PACL were transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Committee under the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court has already seized of the matter in question. In view of the above order of the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the complainant has filed the present complaint being an investor, as such, we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to direct the company to pay to the complainant/ investor, the amount so deposited by him with the company, more so when the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to constitute a committee, who will refund the amount to the investors after getting the sale proceeds of the property of the company. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this Forum is unable to pass an executable order against the opposite party in view of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, we dispose of the complaint accordingly, with liberty to the complainant to file/seek his claim/relief before the competent committee as constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM                                                                           Dt.01.07.2016

 (Raghbir Singh)                                           President,                                                 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(R.S.Panghal)                                                                                                                                                 Member

 

 

 

Present:                      Sh. Manoj Saneja, counsel for the complainant.                                                 Sh. Raman Sardana, counsel for the opposite parties.                            

 

                                    Vide our separate order of even date, the present complaint is disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to the record.

Dt.1.7.2016.                                                                          President

                                      Member