DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 01
Instituted on: 07.01.2020
Decided on: 06.07.2022
Usha Rani aged about 56 years wife of Inder Bhan, resident of House No.140 Noorpura Basti, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226 024 through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara Indi Pariwar, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Franchies Guardian/Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Naresh Juneja Adv.
For the OPs : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and
Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate
Quorum
Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
FINAL ORDER
1. Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing the amount in five FDRs i.e. (i) FDR of Rs.10250/- dated 14.06.2012 vide certificate no.071029106883 and receipt no. 71029106883, (ii) FDR of Rs.5000/- dated 03.10.2012 vide certificate no.71020040692 and receipt no. 71020040692, (iii) FDR of Rs.5000/- dated 03.10.2012 vide certificate no.562002903404 and receipt no. 562002903404, (iv) FDR of Rs.10750/- dated 31.07.2012 vide certificate no.071010559412 and receipt no. 71010559412, (v) FDR of Rs.10000/- dated 28.07.2012 vide certificate no.071010559304 and receipt no. 071010559304 with total maturity amount of Rs.30500/-. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, she 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 she was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.30500/- along with interest and also for Rs.25,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.5500/- 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, 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 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.36000/- for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance payment and the plan period was 6 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 her own affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of FDRs Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 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 her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record copies of certificate and receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 which show that a total amount of Rs.36000/- 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. From the perusal of all the certificates and receipts produced by the complainant on record from Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6, we find that the complainant has produced receipt no.071020040692 and certificate no.562 002903404 which are for the same amount i.e. Rs.5000/-. As such the complainant had invested a total amount of Rs.36000/- which has been admitted by the Ops in their written reply while giving the details of invested amount.
9. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.36000/- 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.36000/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 show that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.36000/- with the opposite parties vide certificates and receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. There is no satisfactory reply from the Ops that why the Ops did not refund to the complainant the so deposited amount of Rs.36000/- 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 to Ex.C-6, it is established that the deposit/investment receipt is issued by Sahara Q Shop.
10. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had deposited the disputed amount of Rs.36000/- with the Ops, but the Ops are taking lame excuses for not returning the amount alongwith interest. From the perusal of record we also find that the complainant has sought in relief part of complaint to refund an amount of Rs.30500/- which is wrong as already stated above. 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.
11. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.36000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as costs and Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
13. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced.
July 6, 2022
(Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member President
