| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 700 of 11-11-2014 Decided on : 06-10-2015 Ravinder Jindal S/o Sh. Pirthi Chand aged 44 years, R/o Ambika Sanitary Store, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. …... Complainant Versus PACL India Limited, through its C.M.D. Registered Office, 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur 302004. Incharge, Customer Service Centre, PACL India Limited, SCF 12, Bharat Nagar, Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhraj Kumar, counsel for complainant For the opposite parties : Sh. N K Singla, counsel for OPs. O R D E R Jarnail Singh, Member This complaint has been filed by Ravinder Jindal, complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against PACL Ltd., and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 after being registered for a plot measuring 1000 Sq. Yds vide registration No. U018054864 dated 24-02-2007. The opposite party No. 1 issued registration letter bearing No. XV 50 A 6886415 dated 24-02-2007 in favour of complainant. As per terms and conditions framed by opposite parties, after completion of seven years of deposit, opposite party No. 1 was to pay realizable value of Rs. 1,14,305/-. It as a single deposit plan. It is pleaded that after completion of seven years term, the complainant submitted all the original documents to opposite party No. 2 for claiming realizable value of Rs. 1,14,035/- on 6-3-2014 and obtained acknowledgement. The complainant requested the opposite parties to make payment of realizable amount, but the opposite parties instead of making the payment, asked the complainant to wait for a month whereas they were legally bound to make the payment immediately on receipt of documents. It is further alleged that thereafter again when the complainant visited opposite party No. 2 to get the realizable value of his deposit, the opposite parties neither paid the amount nor made any commitment about the payment of the amount. It is pleaded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have not honoured the terms and conditions of the deposit and have knowingly, malafidely and intentionally deprived him of the benefit due under the deposit scheme. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,14,035/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from due date till payment in addition to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite parties put in appearance through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In written version, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that PACL Ltd. is neither the financial establishment nor non-banking financial company. It is not collecting/accepting deposit from the public by promising lucrative high rate of interest nor issuing any kind of policy, premium and maturity etc., It is Real Estate Company and engaged in the business of sale and development of agriculture land/plot across the country and allots the land to its customer. The company did not receive any deposit from the complainant. It only received advance consideration for purchase of land/plot as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties for sale and development of land/plot. The complaint is based on false and baseless allegation against the opposite party. The complainant has intentionally and willfully not disclosed the material facts. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement, according to which the parties should invoke arbitration proceedings for the redressal of their grievances and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' in the 'Act'. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as defined U/S 2(d) and unfair trade practice U/S 2( g) of the 'Act', therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant and the opposite party had executed an agreement for allotment of land which was for a period of five years and six months. After the said period, the opposite party was to provide a plot of land as per the amount deposited by the complainant. If the complainant did not want said land, opposite party was to provide the expected realize value of land. The opposite parties have further pleaded that complainant had made deposit as per the agreement executed between the parties. The opposite party did not receive any deposit from the complainant and the amount received from him is an advance consideration for purchase of land/plot. The said amount is received as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the company and complainant for sale and purchase of land/plot. It is further pleaded that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has freezed the bank accounts of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the arbitrary orders of CBI, which is pending for disposal before Hon'ble High Court. The opposite parties are helpless to make refund/payment to their customer. As such, the delay in payment to the complainant is neither intentional nor deliberate and due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that deficiency in service and cause of action do not arise against the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The opposite parties have never promised to pay any money to the complainant. They promised for plot of land and if he is not keen to take plot in that case they will arrange for sale of his plot and complainant will receive only estimated realizable value. After controverting all others averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissed of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 02-02-2014 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of registration dated 24-02-2007 (Ex. C-1) photocopy of acknowledgement (Ex. C-2 ) and photocopy of press release (Ex. C-3). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of dated 08-06-2015 of Naib Singh (Ex. OP-1/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant invested Rs. 50,000/-. Receipt Ex. C-1 proves deposit of amount by complainant. The opposite parties were to refund Rs. 1,14,035/- against deposit of Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly the opposite parties have not paid this amount. The deposit of amount is also not disputed by the opposite parties. The pleading of the opposite parties is that they have promised plot of land but no agreement in this regard is brought on record. in the written version it is stated that opposite parties are not refunding the amount as the account is freezed by CBI. From this stand of the opposite parties, it is admitted that complainant has deposited the amount and the opposite parties have failed to repay this amount. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount alongwith interest @18% P.A. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that as per agreement executed between the parties and receipt, opposite parties promised for allotment of plot measuring 1000 Sq. Yds. The estimated realizable value mentioned at the end of term was only regarding plot to be allotted to complainant. It cannot be termed commitment of refund. Thus, complainant cannot claim refund of the amount and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/- with the opposite parties. The receipt Ex. C-1 proves this fact. Although it is mentioned in the receipt that terms of booking and allotment shall be governed by terms of agreement and general terms and conditions mentioned overleaf but neither complainant nor the opposite parties have brought on record any such agreement containing these terms. As per receipt the estimated realizable value is Rs. 1,14,035/- against deposit of Rs.50,000/-. The opposite parties have pleaded that the said amount was for allotment of plot, but nothing has been brought on record to show that they have allotted or offered to allot any plot to complainant. In the written version, the opposite parties have stated that they are unable to refund the amount as the account is freezed. Admittedly, the opposite parties have not repaid the amount. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount. Now coming to the rate of interest. It is not disputed that as per calculation, the rate of interest offered by the opposite parties to the complainant was more than 24% p.a. The complainant has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. but this claim of the complainant is considered on the excessive side. As such, the complainant is held entitled to the interest @ 15% p.a. from due date. For the reasons recorded above, complaint is partly accepted with cost and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,14,035/- with interest @ 15% P.A. w.e.f. 24-02-2014 till realization, to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 06-10-2015 (M.P. Singh Pahwa ) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur ) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
