Punjab

Sangrur

CC/365/2015

Manmohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajnish Verma

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                    

                                                                   Complaint no. 365                                                                                                 

                                                                    Instituted on:  01.06.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    11.09.2015

 

Manmohan Lal aged about 65 years, son of Shri Brij Lal, R/o H.No.255, Street No.2-B, Ram Basti, Sangrur, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     PACL India Limited, SCO No.10-12, Dhuri Gate, Opp. H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Kaula Park, near Goyal Laboratory, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     PACL India Limited, 7^th Floor Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through Chairman-cum- Chief Managing Director Nirmal Singh Bhangu, Resident of Hourse No.2136, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar            ( Mohali) Punjab.

 

3.     PACL India Limited, 22, 3^rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur 302004 through Director  or authorized Signatory.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Rajnish Verma, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Manmohan Lal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OP No.1, he opened an account/policy bearing reg. no. U107107516  dated  10.04.2009  and deposited Rs.30,000/- ( single time) with OP no.1 for a term of five years three months which was to be matured on 10.07.2014. The maturity value of the policy is Rs.55740/-. After the  date of maturity, the complainant had submitted  the original documents for refund of the maturity amount under acknowledgement on 03.07.2014 but he had not received the maturity 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.55740/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till payment or to handover the possession of the plot as per agreement,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)    Ops be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5500/- 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 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 OPs 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 to 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  deposited an amount of Rs.30000/- ( single time) with OP No.1 for five years  three months and OPs had to repay the amount to the complainant after maturity period to the tune of Rs.55740/- as per document Ex.C-5 on record. The complainant has also stated that on 03.07.2014 he submitted all 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.55740/-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 11, 2015.

 

 

 

 

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

                Member                                 President

 

 

BBS/-