Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
This complaint case has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited, hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service by the OP due to non-payment of maturity amount by the OP company.
The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it, are that the Complainant deposited 10 GM Gold of Rs.29264/- in the ‘Sahara Q Gold Mart’ Scheme, hereinafter called the said scheme, having account no. 66205000005. This account was opened on103/07/2013 and the date of maturity was fixed on 13/07/2018 and the maturity amount was written as 16 GM Gold. Complainant alleged that after the maturity date he went to the branch office of the OP to receive the maturity amount on 14/07/2018 and again on 31/05/2019 but the OP failed to pay the maturity amount.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay the 16 GM Gold (22 Karat) + Interest @8% P.A. from the date of maturity date i.e. 13/07/2018 till realization of the 16 GM Gold (22 Karat) and to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
DEFENCE CASE:
The opposite party enters appearance by filing written version denying interalia all material allegations leveled against it. As per submission of the opposite party, the complainant has not submitted any documents nor any KYC to the opposite party in support of his claim. All other denials made by the opposite party are evasive in nature. The opposite party prays for dismissal of this complaint case with heavy cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.
Inspite of filing written version the OP did not appear, for which the commission restrained the OP from filing evidence.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant has filed written notes of argument. As per BNA, the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
The OP did not take part in argument also.
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument Ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
The pertinent question herein lies whether the petitioner is a consumer?
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Howrah and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
Specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner deposited his 10 GM Gold worth of Rs.29264/- on 13/07/2013 being numbers 66205000005 at Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd, Domjur branch.
His specific case is that the O.P even being aware that the petitioner is the maturity holder of the aforesaid amount instead of disbursing the matured amount in favour of the complainant,, the O.P along with its staff did not pay any heed to that effect rather kept silent.
Finding no other alternative the petitioner requested the OP to disburse the matured amount on 14/07/2018 & 31/05/2019 which also produced no fruitful result which gives rise to the instant proceeding for the reliefs mentioned in the petition itself.
The O.P entered his appearance by filing vakalatnama and also filed W.V. on 05/03/2020 but ultimately for taking no further steps the present case has been heard only on behalf of complainant vide order no.17 dated 11/09/2023.
In order to substantiate his claim in respect of deposit Gold the petitioner has filed photocopy of Aadhaar card. He has also filed photocopies of thirteen deposit receipts, the opposite side of each of the deposit receipts reveals that those thirteen deposits have been renewed from 13/07/2013 to 13/07/2018 and a perusal of the same reveals that SK Jahir Abbas by his own handwriting noted on those certificates to renew the same lastly on 31/07/2014 stating there in to renew the entire amount for twelve months and that is the reason why all those thirteen receipts have been renewed upto 31/07/2014.
To substantiate the case of the opposite party, that there is no deficiency of service on their part no single paper has been produced by the opposite party. As per submission of the opposite party , the complainant has not submitted any documents nor any KYC before the OP for his claim. But fact remains that no paper has been produced by the OP to show that they have asked for those documents to the complainant rather complainant has annxed certain photocopies to show that he has paid the installments. The opposite miserably failed to prove his defense whereas the complainant is able to prove his case.
From the facts stated above and taking into consideration all the documents produced by the complainant this commission holds the opposite party to be negligent in proving service and there is gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
These two issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Complaint case no 6 of 2020 be and the same is decreed in favour of the complainant along with cost.
The complainant do get the price of 16 gm gld( 22karat) as per present market price along with 9% interest from the OP from the date of initiation of this instant complaint case within 45 days from date:
The complainant do further get Rs.10000/ For harassment and Rs.2000/ towards litigation cost from the OPs within 45days from date.
In case OPs fail to comply the order passed by this commission complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law after completion of the due date of 45 days from date.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website The word file is drafted and corrected by me.
(Minakshi Chakraborty)
Member
D.C.D.R.C., Howrah
