Punjab

Sangrur

CC/631/2021

Niharika Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S.Shergill

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 631

 Instituted on:   18.05.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     07.02.2023

 

Niharika Singla aged 17 years minor daughter of Sanjeev Singla, through her guardian mother Sheeru Singla wife of Sanjeev Singla, resident of House No.331/01, Ward No.9, Jawahar Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Mandi Ahemdgarh, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Chairman/MD.

2.             Sahara India Pariwar,  Area office: SCO 82-83, IInd Floor, Phase-V, Shahi Majra, Balongi Road, Near AM Hospital, Sector 58,  Mohali-160062 through its Manager. (Notice to OP no. 2 not issued).

3.             Sahara India Pariwar, Phirni Road, Near Ram Mandir, Near Sohan Lal Chakki, Sunami Gate, Sangrur 148001 through its Branch Manager.

4.             Girdhar Gopal Branch Manager of Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Near Sohan Lal Chaki, Sunami Gate, Sangrur 148001. (Notice to OP no. 4 not issued)

5.             Subrata Roy Chairman of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024 through its M.D. (Notice to OP no. 5 not issued)

6.     Shri Arun Singh (Regional Manager) Sahara India Parivar, Area Ofice: SCO 82-84, IInd Floor, Phase V, Shahi Majra, Balongi Road, Near AM Hospital, Sector 58,  Mohali 160062. (Notice to OP no. 6 not issued).

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

 

For the complainant  : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.          

            For the OPs 1&3       : Shri Sanjeev Goyal Advocate

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The complainant filed this complaint pleading that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by depositing  an amount of Rs.22,520/- in cash  on 20.7.2012 with the opposite parties and the opposite parties issued policy voucher/receipt no.092-000737818 dated 20.7.2012, the opposite parties promised to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,400/- or 8 grams  gold coins as per policy on maturity i.e. 20.6.2017.  Further case of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to pay the maturity amount. Lastly, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to release the maturity amount of Rs.38,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization and further to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             After the notice being served upon the opposite parties, the opposite parties appeared through Advocate Shri Udit Goyal and filed written version. In written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complaint is frivolous and vexatious, that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.

3.             On merits,  it is stated that after understanding all the conditions of the plan on 20.7.2012 the complainant had booked 8 grams 22 Kt gold at that time the value of the same was Rs.22,520/-. So as per the conditions of scheme she paid 62.5% i.e. Rs.14,075/- only and as such she received discount of 37.5% of Rs.22520/- i.e. Rs.8445/- and the claim of complainant for payment of Rs.38,400/- is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of scheme as well as income Tax Act.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 copy of receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the  opposite parties have produced Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that on assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by  depositing  an amount of Rs.22,520/-  on 20.7.2012 with the opposite parties and issued policy no.092-000737818 dated 20.7.2012,  the opposite parties promised to pay Rs.38,400/- or 8 grams (22 Karat) gold coins as per policy on maturity i.e. 20.6.2017.  Further case of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to pay the maturity amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted  that after understanding all the conditions of the plan on 20.7.2012 the complainant had booked 8 grams 22 Kt gold at that time the value of the same was Rs.22,520/-. So as per the conditions of scheme he paid 62.5% of Rs.22,520/- i.e. Rs.14,075/- only and as such she received discount of 37.5% of Rs.22,520/- i.e. Rs.8445/- and the claim of complainant for payment of Rs.38,400/- is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of scheme and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  Ex.C-1 is the copy of receipt, which shows that the complainant got booked gold quantity of Rs.22,520/- which was to be paid on maturity i.e. 20.6.2017, which the opposite parties failed to pay.

7.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.22,520/-  with the opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-1 and the opposite parties were to pay an amount of Rs.38,400/- after the period of five years or to deliver 8 grams gold (22 Karat) but the opposite parties failed to pay the due maturity amount along with interest.  Though the stand of the opposite parties is that no amount is payable by the opposite parties nor any amount has been offered to pay to the complainant, as such, are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the deposited amount of Rs.22,520/- to the complainant alongwith interest from the date of deposit i.e. 20.7.2012. As such,  the opposite parties are deficient in service by not paying the requisite maturity    amount   to  the    complainant.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.22,520/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 20.7.2012 till realization.  It is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases

10.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

 

        February 7, 2023.

 

   (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member            Member                    President