Punjab

Sangrur

CC/245/2021

Jasvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Shop - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Aggarwal

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 245

 Instituted on:   18.02.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     26.04.2022

Jasvinder Kaur wife of Late S. Harjit Singh Pannu, resident of H.No.465, Khalifa Bagh, Opp. Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Q Shop North; Office: Sahara India Complex, C-2, C-3, Sector 11, Noida-201301 through its M.D.

2.     Sahara India Parivar, Area Office: SCO 84-A, IInd Floor, Phase V, Shahi Majra, Banongi Road, Near  A M Hospital, Sector 58, Mohali 160062 through its Manager.

3.     Sahara India Parivar, Phirni Road, Near Ram Mandir, Sunami Gate, Sangrur 148001 through its Franchisee Manager. 

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant  : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.              

For the OPs              : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                  Shri Udit Goyal, 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.1,00,000/- vide policy/Fixed Deposit acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR    certificate    bearing   number 933 000038622 with maturity amount of Rs.2,35,435/- after 29.04.2019. 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.2,35,435/- along with interest and also for Rs.30,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience meted out to her and Rs.20,000/- 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 complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 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 she had deposited money in the shape of FDR or the same was matured on 29.4.2019 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.1,00,000/- for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance payment and the plan period was 6-5 years. 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, copy of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 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 copy of receipt Ex.C-2, which shows that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, in Ex.C-2 it shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-2.  There is no satisfactory reply from the Ops that why the Ops did not refund to the complainant the so deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.1,00,000/- 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 are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.5000/- as costs and Rs.3500/- 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.

 

                                April 26, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Ashish Kumar Grover)

                 Member                                        President