West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/93/2018

Smt. Chandana Das, W/O- Sri Dipankar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sector Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Balurghat Sector - Opp.Party(s)

Pintu Sarkar

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

The brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant is a rustic poor lady and she is an investor of Sahara India Pariwar Balurghat Sector. She invested total Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) only under Saradha Q shop unique products scheme on 05.09.2012 against which opposite party issued a money receipt in favour of the complainant. Due to some financial crisis complainant wanted to withdraw the investment amount from the Op and accordingly she submitted her claim/prayer before the Op on several times but the Op did not accept her prayer. Lastly the complainant sent her prayer in writing to the Op on 10.10.2018 through registered post for making payment of the investment amount. Thereafter on different occasion the complainant went to the office of the Op for getting payment but the Op refused to make payment. Hence this case.   

            Notice was issued upon the opposite party and the op has appeared and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint are denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been submitted by the opposite party that due to some litigation pending with SEBI and the Apex court regarding the financial transaction of Op group the payment has remained stopped and the opposite party craves leave of this Forum and prays for dismissal of the instant case.

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

1. Original receipt issued by the Op in favour of the complainant.
2. Copy of demand application.
3. Postal receipt.

 

Opposite party has also submitted examination in chief of Opw-1 Joy Dutta Gupta, Sector Manager by way of affidavit but no document is submitted on the side of the opposite party.      

                      Points for discussion:

 

1. Is the complainant a consumer to the opposite party?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

                        DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

Point No.1: This is admitted position that the complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 18,400/- under Sahara Q shop unique scheme, So there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

 Point No.2 & 3: These two issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted position that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) only under Sahara Q shop unique product scheme on 05.09.2012  as advance for buying Sahara Q shop goods but since then the Sahara Q shop products were neither supplied to the complainant through agent nor there was any correspondence between the parties. It is also surprising that the receipt which was issued by the OP in favour of the complainant against deposit of advance amount of Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) does not bear any signature of the authorized signatory of the Op. Complainant is a rustic poor lady and being allured by the opposite party/ agent had invested Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) on 05.09.2012 and after lapse of 6 years when the complainant visited the office of the Op for refund of the investment amount the Op denied to make payment. The money receipt which is valuable piece of document in this case clearly shows that it was issued to the complainant without having any signature of the authorized signatory with some ulterior motive and thus complainant is deceived.

Op did not deny regarding payment of Rs.18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) by the complainant as advance under Sahara Q shop products scheme. Here we find that complainant is a bonafide consumer of the OP and accordingly she is entitled to get the principle amount of Rs.18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) together with interest @8% p.a. from the date of investment till realization from the Op. There is no denial of the fact about lack of responsibility in discharging duty on the part of the Op and there lies deficiency in service on the part of the Op.

 

            

 

              Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

             That the Consumer complaint Case No.93/2018 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the Op. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred) together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of investment on 05.09.2012 till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favrour of the complaint within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The Op is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand) towards litigation cost in default complainant has liberty to execute the order as per law. 

 

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