Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/8/2022

Sahara India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pranav Joshi - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Jindal & Nitin Sharma Adv.

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	08 of 2022
Date of Institution	14.01.2022
Date of Decision	23.02.2022

1. Sahara India, Sahara India Bhawasn, 1, Kapoorthala complex, Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024, through its Chairman and Managing Director Sh. Subrata Roy Sahara.

 

2. Sahara India, SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh - 160022, through its Regional Manager.

 

3. Sahara India, C/o Avadh Palace, Opposite High Court of H.P. The Mall, Shimla – 171001, through its Sector Manager – Sh. Siya Ram.

                                               …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Pranav Joshi S/o unknown R/o A-1, Ekta Colony, Panjari, Shimla – 171004 (H.P).           

                                                                  …..Respondent/Complainant                 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.06.2021, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions: -

“12. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay the maturity amount of   Rs.2,35,435/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 28.09.2018.

[b]  To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

                        [c]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(a) from the date of maturity i.e. 28.09.2018 till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Opposite Parties/appellants on 29.09.2012 (Annexure C-1). It was stated that as per the Investment Plan in Q Shop Plan H (Annexure C-2), the complainant would get a return of Rs.2,35,435/- after six years.  It was further stated that despite lapse of more than seven years, appellants are keeping the aforesaid money to the disadvantage of the complainant without any rhyme and reason. It was further stated that a legal notice dated 09.10.2019, followed by reminder dated 20.01.2020 was served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties filed their reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator and that the dispute between Member & Society is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act.  It was further stated that Q Shop is not a fixed deposit scheme, complainant has to purchase the products of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited Company under Q Shop Plan-H Scheme. It was further stated that as per the terms & conditions of the Scheme there is no provision of payment of pre-maturity or maturity and there is also no interest payable over the advance amount. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, partly allowed the complaint against Opposite Parties, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the respondents, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On going through the record of the learned District commission, we observed that the District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint. It is observed from the records that the respondent is entitled to Rs.2,35,435/- which is the total return after six years from the date of deposit i.e. 29.09.2012 (Annexure C-2). The said document bears the stamp/seal of the appellants which fortifies the claim of the respondent. Moreover, the District commission has observed that the complainant/respondent has not availed any kind of services from the appellants and have also not taken cash back and therefore, according to the scheme in which the investment was made, he was certainly and definitely entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.2,35,435/-. This Commission also falls in line with the learned District Commission’s view and therefore, the said appeal is dismissed at preliminary stage.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 2022 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 11.6.2021 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

 

23.02.2022

      

                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                         [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

GP