BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.: 43 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 29.01.2016.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2016.
Umesh Kumar aged 29 years son of Sh.Sunder Lal Caste Aggarwal, resident of near Post Office Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad Mob. No.95419-13587.
…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. Zile Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Raman Sardana, counsel for the Ops.
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 a period of five years and six months and deposited Rs.320/- each as monthly installment under I.P.P plan with date of commencement 30.08.2008 and expiry date is 01.03.2014. It has been further averred that the last installment was deposited on 30.01.2014 and the maturity of the said policy was 01.03.2014 and the Ops had to pay Rs.29094/- on maturity with interest. According to the complainant after maturity of the said policy, the opposite parties have failed to make any payment to the complainant despite his several requests, visits and completing of all the formalities. As such, he is entitled to the above said amount besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared but reply has not been filed. However, prayer for deciding the complaint on the ground of maintainability in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 2.2.2016 has been made.
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.01.09.2016
(Raghbir Singh)
President,
District ConsumerDisputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
