BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.: 75 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 02.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 17.08.2016.
Dalbir Singh aged 47 years son of Sh. Ramratan, caste Bishnoi, resident of village Saniyana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Branch Manager, PACL Limited, Chandigarh Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
2. Director of PACL Limited, India 7th floor Gopaldas Bhawan 28, Barakhamba Road New Delhi 110001.
...Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present: Sh. Bhal Singh, counsel for the complainant.
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 obtained a policy from the opposite parties for period of six years and out of his hardship saving deposited half yearly installments of Rs.6435/- each under I.P.P plan with date of commencement 20.11.2012 and expiry date is 20.11.2018. It has been further averred that installments were deposited by the complainant to the op no.1 but now op no.1 has refused to receive the further installments and company is in litigation, so the complainant has no further faith upon the ops. The complainant so many times visited the branch office at Tohana to deposit pending installments but official of the ops denied to receive the amount and also denied to give back payment deposited by him. The complainant is entitled to receive his maturity value of Rs.75,000/- from the ops alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment. He is also entitled to amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon presentation of this complaint, notice was given to the opposite parties. Summons issued to p no.1 through RC received back unserved with the report that nobody met at the given address whereas process issued to op no.2 through RC not received back either served or unserved. The case was fixed for consideration on the maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum as per order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Heard. In this complaint, it is not in dispute that the complainant Dalbir Singh is one of the investors who has made investment with the opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited. However, 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 parties and as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. In such circumstances, the present complaint is dismissed. The complainant is at liberty 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 complainant free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.17.08.2016
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
