The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- including Interest & benefit + Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Total Rs. 2,38,000/-).

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant on 06.09.2012 opened and entered into the Scheme SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCT RANGE LTD  of  SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR and invested total Rs. 80,000/- with condition that after six years, the Opposite Parties will return back as a maturity mount of Rs.1,88,000/- The Opposite Parties duly issued money receipt No. 71010334971 and Certificate No. 562000551255 to the Complainant. The Complainant has further stated that after maturity he approached to the Opposite Parties for getting refund the maturity amount but in every occasion the Opposite Parties took a new plea and till today they did not pay any amount to the Complainant. Lastly, on 04.06.2019 the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Parties but in vain. Therefore, the Complainant informed the matter before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practiced, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat on 08.07.2019 but thr Opposite Parties did not appear in the matter. Having no alternative the Complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed in the plaint.

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before this commission and filed their joint written version.          

           By filing written version, the Opposite Parties have denied the material allegation as mentioned in the plaint. The Opposite Party has submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the relationship between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the Opposite Party and the Complainant is a commercial / financial and any grievance on it should be redressed in civil court only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite Parties have further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties due to dispute with SEBI and the matter is pending Before Hon`ble Supreme Court of India. The delay payment is happened as the Apex Court imposed Embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of companies on 21.11.2013. Subsequently, another petition has been filed by the Sahara Group of companies to lift Embargo on the Sahara Group of companies and so that they raised money from their assets and their business. But Hon`ble Supreme Court has rejected the petition. The Complainant never went to the office of the Opposite Parties for his demand. The present claim petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

          To prove his case, the complainant has filed (i) One original Certificate bearing No.562000551255 and Receipt of money deposit bearing No. 071010334971. (ii) original letter dated 14.06.2019.

          On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have failed to file any document in support of his defense.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration-   

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION  

          1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

     2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?

      3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have also gone through the written examination-in chief and written argument filed by the both sides.  Perused the other materials on record.   

            At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He further submitted that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has successfully proved his case. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

            On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Parties also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. advocate further submitted that the Complainant never came to the office of the Opposite Party to draw her payable amount. However, there is some delay to pay the amount due to the Embargo imposed upon the Opposite Party. The Complainant is not entitled to get compensation because the Opposite Party never harassed him.           

        Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1 

          On perusal of materials on record and the original Policy Certificate and money receipt, it appears that the Complainant is a Policy Holder under Scheme of the Opposite Parties . If this be the so, then it is clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties according to section (2) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 read with Consumer Protection Act,2019.

           Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3  

             Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.   

              It is an admitted fact that the Complainant on 06.09. 2012 opened and entered into the Scheme SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCT RANGE LTD. of  SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR and invested total Rs. 80,000/- with condition that after six years, the Opposite Parties will return back as a maturity mount of Rs.1,88,000/- The Opposite Parties duly issued money receipt No. 71010334971 and Certificate No. 562000551255 to the Complainant. The return period of Policy certificates was of 6 (Six) years. After the expiry of six years the Opposite Parties did not pay the matured amount to the Complainant in spite of demanding the same on several occasions and sending written letter to the Opposite Parties.

    Now, on perusal of the materials on record as well as the original Policy Certificate and Money Receipts, it appears from the terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse page of the Policy Certificate, that the customer will get total benefit of Rs. 42,654/- on a contribution of Rs. 20,000/- after six years. In the same way, if a customer has contributed Rs. 80,000/- then the customer will get total benefit of Rs.1,70,616/- after six years. In the instant case, the Complainant has invested Rs. 80,000/- before the Opposite Parties for a period of six years so, the Complainant is entitled to get total amount of Rs.1,70,616 from the Opposite Parties.

              In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Parties and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Thus, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                                                        O R D E R E D

   That the Consumer Case No. 130 of 2019 is hereby allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Parties but without cost. 

           The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.1,70,616/- only to the Complainant along with an interest @ 8% p.a. on the said amount from 06.09.2018 to till the date of realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the Complainant within 45 days. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.