Punjab

Sangrur

CC/919/2021

Parvitar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Meenakshi Garg

09 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 919

 Instituted on:   20.07.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     09.05.2022

Pavitar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Samuran, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited, Branch Office: Opposite Polo Ground, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.     Sahara India Parivar, Area Office: SCO 84-A, Sector 58, SAS Nagar, 2^nd Floor,  Mohali  through its Manager.

3.     Subrata Roy Sahara, Chairman Sahara India Pariwar, Commandant Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.

 

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant    : Shri Lovepreet Walia, Adv.

                                       Proxy for counsel for complainant.              

For the OPs               : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                     Shri Pratham Jain, Advocate.

 

Quorum                                           

Ashish Kumar Grover, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

Ashish Kumar Grover, President.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing a sum of Rs.26,700/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR    certificate    bearing   number 071020042100 with maturity amount of Rs.62,745/- after 15.05.2018. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then he was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.62,745/- along with interest and also for Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience meted out to him and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature and that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that the scheme of the OPs relate to purchase of products through which customer can purchase the products of company in every month for a  period of 6 years as per his requirement, that the complainant has falsely stated that he had deposited money in the shape of FDR or the same was matured on 15.5.2018 but true fact is that Q shop is not a fixed deposit scheme and that the term of Q shop scheme is 6 years which is commenced from the date of advance payment. On merits, it is stated that the complainant paid an advance of Rs.26,700/- for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance payment and the plan period was 6-5 years. It is stated further that the main reason of delay in making the payment is due to the EMBARGO, which is established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in which the SAHARA cannot sale/purchase of anything without the order of the Hon’ble Court. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In support of case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 and copy of receipt Ex.C-2 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have produced sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1 of Shri Rajesh Kumar shukla, Sr. Executive, Sector Manager Patiala and closed evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

6.             In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copy of receipt Ex.C-2, which shows that a total amount of Rs.26,700/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. 

7.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence except affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager.

8.             Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.26,700/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the record it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs.26,700/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, in Ex.C-2 it shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.26,700/- with the opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-2.  There is no satisfactory reply from the Ops that why the Ops did not refund the so deposited amount of Rs.26,700/- alongwith interest to the complainant. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Moreover, as per  Ex.C-2 it is established that the deposit/investment receipt is issued by Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited. So, it is proved that the Consumer Fora (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

9.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had deposited the disputed amount of Rs.26,700/- with the Ops, but the Ops are taking lame excuses for not returning the amount  alongwith interest.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are liable to refund the above said deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest.  

10.            As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties number 1 and 2 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.26,700/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3500/- as costs and Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                May 9, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Ashish Kumar Grover)

                 Member                                          President