| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.39 of 06-01-2016 Decided on 14-07-2016 Gamdur Singh aged about 55 years S/o Gurdip Singh R/o Ward No.9, Dashmesh Nagar, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.PACL Limited, Branch Office: S.C.F No.12, Bharat Nagar, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Head/Incharge. 2.PACL India Ltd. Corporate Office, 7th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Regional Manager. 3.PACL India Ltd. Registered Office, 22, 3rd Floor, Amber Tower, Sansar Chand Road, Jaipur, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Manager/Director. .......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 complainant: Sh.Ish Kumar, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3: Ex-parte. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Gamdur Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties PACL India Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the agent of opposite parties at Bathinda contacted him in the month of February 2010. He represented that opposite party No.1 is working under opposite party Nos.2 and 3, being their business branch and rendering banking services by offering various investment schemes including recurring deposit plan. He allured him to invest Rs.66,000/- in the scheme, according to which he has to invest/pay Rs.66,000/- in 66 monthly installments of Rs.1000/- per month i.e. in five and half years and he shall get an amount of Rs.90,900/- on its maturity after five and half years from the date of investment. He further allured that in order to secure the investment/maturity amount of the complainant, opposite parties shall book/register a plot measuring 1250 sq. yards and on maturity of plan, he shall have option to get maturity amount of Rs.90,900/- on deposit of registration letter. On further enquiry by complainant, agent of opposite parties made it clear that in case the complainant wants to get refund of the invested amount before maturity of the plan, he can approach opposite parties and after completing formalities and after deposit of registration letter, his request for refund of invested amount shall be processed and invested amount shall be refund to him with proportionate interest/returns and invested amount shall remain quite safe. It is alleged that being allured by scheme and inducements made by agent of opposite parties, the complainant agreed to make investment in the scheme. Agent of opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank printed forms/blank papers without explaining him contents thereof. Accordingly, he deposited first installment of Rs.1000/- on 29.1.2010. Opposite parties issued him registration certificate vide registration No.U018172855 under payment plan No.I7 for the term of 5 years and 6 months with maturity date 29.7.2015. It is further alleged that opposite parties have also introduced a recurring deposit scheme wherein investors have to deposit periodical installments, but now it is learnt that all the aforesaid schemes including one time deposit scheme have been declared by SEBI to be unauthorized schemes. The Securities and Exchange Board of India passed order in the month of August 2014 against PACL in which PACL was directed as under:- “PACL Limited, its promoters and directors shall wind up all the existing collective investment schemes of PACL Limited and refund the monies collected by the said company under its schemes with returns which are due to its investors.... within a period of three months.” On coming to know about the orders of SEBI, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and expressed his willingness to deposit the registration letter as well as to complete the entire formalities, if any. He requested to refund his amount alongwith proportionate returns/interest, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to them for payment of Rs.56,000/- alongwith proportionate interest and future interest @ 18% per annum and claimed Rs.10,000/- as damages and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. On the statement suffered by the counsel for complainant on 7.1.2016, opposite party No.3 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. Subsequently, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 26.12.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopy of policy-cum-first installment receipt, (Ex.C2); photocopies of payment receipts, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C54) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. From the contents of the complaint and relief claimed by the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant has claimed investor of opposite parties. Civil Appeal Nos.13301, 13319, 13394 and 13304 of 2015 titled as Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India relates to some investors who invested their money with PACL Limited (opposite party). Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order vide which SEBI shall constitute committee for disposing of land purchased by company so that the sale proceedings can be paid to investors, who have invested the amount in the company for purchase of land. It is further ordered that the decision with regard to sale of property of company by committee is not to be interfered by any court. The Paras No.3, 7, 12 and 13 of the order passed in the abovesaid Civil Appeal are relevant and extracted 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 inferred with by any Court.” The Hon'ble Committee under the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court has already seized of the matter in question. In this complaint, it is not disputed that the complainant namely Gamdur Singh is one of the investor, who made investment with opposite parties i.e. PACL Limited. In view of aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that this Forum cannot pass an executable order against opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Committee to seek his claim. 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:- 14-07-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
