West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/137/2019

Sri Niranjan Mahanta, S/O- Late Gire Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager/Authorised Person, Hili Franchisee Branch, Sahara India Pariwar - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2022

ORDER

The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an investor of Sahara India Pariwar of Hili Franchisee Branch and invested Rs. 40,000/- only under Sahara Q shop plan H scheme on 29.08.2012 and the O.P.s duly issued a certificate vide No. 562021376320. As per the terms and condition of the aforesaid scheme the invested amount can be withdrawn after the expiry of six years. After the maturity i.e. the completion of six years the complainant due to some urgent monetary necessity the complainant wants to get her invested or maturity amount. He went to the office of the O.P.s in various occasions to get his maturity amount but each and every time, the complainant has to returne with empty hands and with false assurance. The complainant then sent his prayer through registered post on 01.11.2018 to the OP No-1. Thereafter on several occasions the complainant went to the office of the Ops for getting his invested money along with maturity benefit and interest but in every occasion the Ops took the new plea and did not pay the maturity amount to the complainant. Lastly on 20.12.2018 the complainant again through registered post send a letter to the O.P. no.1 to disburse the maturity amount. But till date no initiative was taken by the O.P.s.  Due to the non-payment of the maturity amount the complainant suffered irreparable loss and injury. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this instant case praying for passing an order directing the O.P.s to make payment of principal amount Rs. 40,000/- along maturity benefits and interest as per Sahara Q shop plan-H scheme plus compensation of Rs 30,000/- plus litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-

            Notice was issued upon the O.P.s. The O.P.s appeared by filing written version wherein the averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been also stated that the apex court impose embargo on the movable and immovable properties of the Sahara Groups of companies and prays for dismissed of the instant case.

            In this case complainant has submitted examination-in-chief supported by affidavit along with following documents by firisti :

            1. One original cash certificate dt. 29.08.2012 issued by Sahara Q shop unique product range limited (Sahara India Pariwar), vide certificate no. 562021376320 amounting to Rs. 40,000/- in the name of Niranjan Mahanta.

            2 One postal receipts, vide no. RW957865202IN, dt. 20.12.2018,vide no.RW972784789, dated 01/11/2018.     

       Opposite party has also submitted examination-in-chief of OPW-1 by way of affidavit but no documents is submitted on the side of the O.P.s.

 

                                         Points for discussion

 

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

 

Point No.1 

The complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- under Sahara Q Shop Plan-H Scheme on 29.08.2012. It is also admitted by the O.P.s in their written version. So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986.

 

Point No. 2 & 3            

These two points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted fact that the complainant had invested Rs. 40,000/- to the 0.p.s in Sahara Q shop plan-H scheme on 29.08.2012 and the O.P.s issued a certificate vide no. 562021376320 to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid scheme, the complainant can withdraw the invested amount at any time after the expiry of 6 years.

          After maturity the complainant due to some personal financial crisis went to the office of the Ops and submitted his prayer but the office of the ops did not accept it. The complainant then sent his prayer through registered post on 01.11.2018 and 20.12.2018.Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the O.P.s in various occasions for getting his maturity value of the invested amount but the O.P.s did nothing. Till today complainant did not get his maturity amount from the O.P.s.

          On perusal of the complaint, written version, evidence and  documents it is clear that the complainant has invested Rs. 40,000/- for six years and entitled to get the principle amount along with interest as per the terms and condition given in the back page of the certificate.

Ops claimed that as per the terms and condition of the Sahara Q Shop plan-H scheme the complainant did not purchase any goods or articles under the scheme although the deposited money as advance for purchasing goods. But after scrutiny of the  terms and condition stated on the reverse page of the certificate we do not find any materials to hold that for non purchasing of articles under Q shop plan-H the  investor will not entitled to get his investments amounts along with interest. It is found from the reverse page of the certificate that if an esteemed customer does not take the adjustment of advance then in that case the total benefit under Plan-H on consumption/purchase of Sahara Q shop hospitality product would be 2.13 times of the global advance amounts. Therefore, the maturity amount will be (40,000 x 2.13) =85,200/-. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Ops have not paid the aforesaid maturity amount to the complainant but the complainants is entitled to get the maturity amount of Rs. 85,200/-. We find that the complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Ops and nonpayment of the invested amount compelled the complainant to file this instant case. There is no hesitation to hold that the Ops are liable for deficiency in service in not returning the sum invested by the complainant with the accrued interest as agreed upon by and between the parties.

Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

 

Hence, it is

 

ORDERED

 

           That the consumer Complaint case No. 137/2019 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P.s.

            Op No. 1 & 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 85,200/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred only) as maturity value of the invested amount with interest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of maturity till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The Op No.1 & 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost in default the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith.