West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/36/2021

Smt. Dipti Roy Mohanta(Dipti Mohanta), W/O- Nittya Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Debashis Barman

30 Jun 2022

ORDER

             The brief facts of the complaint case is that the complainant is an investor of Sahara India Pariwar Balurghat Sector and she invested total Rs. 12,000/- only under Sahara Q Shop Plan H scheme on 07.09.2012  respectively against which opposite party duly issued a certificate vide No. 071013691382  to the complainant Rs.12,000/-  on 07.09.2012 . As per terms of the scheme the invested amount can be withdrawn at any time after expiry of six years. After the expiry of six years the complainant due to some financial crisis and in urgent need of money went to the office of the O.P and submitted her prayer for withdrawal of the invested amount but the O.P refused to accept his prayer. The complainant then sent the prayer through registered post on 08.07.2021. Thereafter on several occasion complainant went to the office of the O.P for getting the payment of aforesaid certificate but in every occasion the O.P took a new plea and did not pay the amount to the complainant. Finding no others alternatives the complainant filed this instant case against the O.P claiming principal amount of Rs.12,000/- along with benefit and interest as per Sahara Q Shop plan H Scheme , compensation of Rs.5,000/-& litigation cost of Rs 10,000/-.

           

            Notice was issued upon the Opposite Party and the O.P 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 O.P group the payment has remained stop and the opposite party craves leave of this Commission and prays for dismissal of the instant case.

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

1. Certificate No.071013691382 Dt.07.09.2012 of Rs.12,000/- in the name of Dipti Mohanta.
2. Postal Receipts No. RW946557109IN dated 08.07.2021.
3. Money receipt in the name of Dipti Mohanta.
4. Prayer for withdrawal of the maturity amount.

Opposite party has also submitted examination in chief of Opw-1 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 fact that complainant invested a total sum of Rs.12,000/- on 07.09.2012  under Sahara Q shop unique plan H 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 2 & 3  

These two issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. This is admitted fact that the complainant had invested Rs.12,000/-  under Sahara Q shop plan H scheme on 0709.2012 and the O.P. duly issued one certificate vide No.071013691382 to the complainant. As per the terms and condition of the Sahara Q shop plan H Scheme the investment amount can be withdrawn after expiry of 72 months.

                       This is the case of the complainant that after the expiry of 6 years, the complainant due to some personal financial cricises went to the office of the O.P. and submits his application for withdrawal of the investment amount but the O.P refused to take the same, the complainant then sent his prayer to the O.P through registered post on 08.07.2021. Thereafter the complainant went to the office of the O.P on different occasion for getting payment against the certificate but the O.P did not pay the maturity amount to the complainant.

 

          On perusal of the materials and evidence submitted on the side of the complainant it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.12,000/- along with interest as per terms and conditions given in the certificates. O.P claimed that as per terms and conditions of Sahara Q Shop Hospitality products the complainant did not purchase any article under the scheme nor she come to the office O.P to solve the problem. But on careful scrutiny of the terms and conditions stated on the reverse page of the certificate we do not find any materials to hold that for none purchasing of articles under Q shop plan H the investor will not be entitled to get his investment amount. It is clear from the fact and circumstances of the case the O.P has violated the terms and conditions given in the certificate. Here, we find that the complainant is a bone-fide consumer to the O.P. and such non-payment of the investment amount led the complainant to file the instant case before this Commission. There is no hesitation to hold that O.P. has neglected to discharge his duty and there is enough deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled to get principal amount of Rs.12,000/-  along with interest as per terms and conditions given in the certificates together with interest and litigation cost from the opposite parties. 

 

            All the issues are thus disposed of accordingly.

 

 Hence, it is

 

                                                        O R D E R E D

            That the Consumer complaint Case No.36/2021 is allowed on contest in part with cost against the O.P. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,560/- as maturity value of the invested amount together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complaint within 45 days from the date of passing this order. The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- 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.