Orissa

Rayagada

CC/146/2018

Sri Pradeep Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer Sahara Q Shop Uniaue Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 07.12.2018

    Date of Final Hearing: 06.04.2023

        Date of  Pronouncement: 10.05.2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 146 / 2018

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash,

S/O: Late Nobin Chandra Dash,

At: Dera  Street, Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada.

(Through Self for the Complainant)                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.The  Branch  Manager,  Sahara India,

 At: R.K.Nagar, Po/Dist: Rayagada.

(None  for the O.Ps.)                                                                                                                         

2.The Managing Director,  Sahara India Bhawan,

Kapurtala Complex, Alliganj, Lucknow,

Pin No.226024. State:Utterpradesh.

(None  for the O.Ps.)                                                                         …Opposite Parties (O.Ps)

         

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDE U/S- 39  R/W 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

Sri  Rajendra  Kumar  Panda, President.

Brief facts of the case:-

The crux of the case is on  the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non payment of maturity amount   to the  04( four) numbers of  Bonds/Certificates Q shop  with accrued interest for   which  the complainant sought  redressal to his  complaint.

            The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant had deposited the following  amounts detailed in table below  with the O.Ps. organisation   under cumulative   fixed deposit  scheme  floated by the  O.P. i.e. Q shop carrying  interest. In turn the O.Ps had issued  certificates in favour of the complainant (copies of the same are available in case  record which are  marked as Annexure-I to 4  )   which  are  mentioned here in  detail.

Sl.No.	Certificate No. Q shop	Date of deposit	Final redemption  in 6(Six) years  135%  i.e. Date of Maturity	Deposited Amount	Final redemption  in 6(Six) years  135%  i.e. Maturity Amount.
1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
1.	562010905760	16.08.2012	16.08.2018	15,500/-	36,425/-
2.	562010905761	16.08.2012	16.08.2018	15,100/-	35,485/-
3.	562010905762	16.08.2012	16.08.2018	15,500/-	36,425/-
4.	562010913420	03.09.2012	03.09.2018	43,000/-	1,01,050/-
				Total Rs.	2,09,385/-

As per the  terms and condition of the deposit  the O.P. should have been paid the maturity amount total   sum of Rs.2,09,385/- after the date of  maturity.  But   the O.Ps have not paid the   maturity amount   deferring the payment for some or other plea and paid deaf ear. Hence the complainant prays the commission  direct the O.Ps to refund  the  maturity amount  of Rs. Rs.2,09,385/- with interest from the date of maturity besides cost and compensation and such other relief or reliefs.

The O.Ps were not appeared though notices has been duly served.  The  O.Ps neither appeared   nor filed  their written version  in spite  of  several  adjournments  granted  by  this commission, resultant made exparte. This  commission  proceeded to  dispose of the  case,  on its merit .

Here the doctrine of non traverse will  rightly  applicable as non of the  allegation made by the  complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the  O.P. in any  manner.  The  O.P have  neither  disputed  nor  produce any evidence contrary to the  averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of  facts of the  complaint and the same need not proved  as per Section – 58 of  Indian  evidence  Act.  Law is well settled  that every allegation of facts in the complaint if  not denied  specifically or by necessary implication, or stated  to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P. shall  be taken to be admitted  accept as against a person disability. Where the  O.P.  has not filed a pleading  it shall be  law full for the court  to pronounced judgement on the basic  of the fact contend in the  plaint except  as  against the person  under a disability  (Reliance placed upon the judgement of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkararamana Hebbar  Vrs.  M.Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd.  Vrs. Atmaram Kumar).

Further  we relied the  judgement reported  in CCC 2005 page No.  192(SS) where in  the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission, Maharashtra observed “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -  Section 2(1) (O) – service- Co-Operative Society- service rendered by a  Credit  Society in accepting  deposits  from the  investors falls with in  definition of service in  Section 2(1)(O) of the C.P. Act, 1986. 

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant and circumstances  of this case, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  Bond Q shop  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I to  4).

Issue  No.1.

The  transaction made between the complainant and O.Ps  is clearly one of providing service for ‘consideration’ and the depositor is the relation of consumer and  service provider’ under the  C.P. Act, 2019.

As such this commission has  least hesitation in holding that the  complainant in the present case decidedly  a ‘Consumer’  within the meaning of Section  2(1)(d)(ii) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 corresponding Section-2 (7) (i) & (ii) of C.P.Act, 2019 and the  O.Ps were providing  ‘Service’ within the meaning of Section  2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986  and corresponding    Section- 2(42) of the C.P. Act,2019.

Issue No.2 & 3.

It is  not in dispute that the complainant had made deposits with the  O.Ps.under their schemes.  It is also not dispute  that the deposits so made by  the  complainant  with the O.P. were to  carry interest  at the agreed rate  to  the  date of maturity  and  also after  the date of maturity..  It is also not in dispute that the  O.P. has failed to discharge the above said obligation.

The  default on the part of the O.Ps to carry out its obligations to repay the principal and/or interest constitutes, are ‘deficiency in service’ so as to warrant the filing of a complaint before the Consumer  Commission seeking relief under the Act.

It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts/deposits by any  financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service.

This commission has  least hesitation  in holding that in the given facts, there is ‘deficiency in service’  simultaneously unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

This Commission  by perusing all the  evidence on record opined that  there is unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps for which  the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for. Therefore, the  complainant would be entitled  to the  maturity amount, Accordingly the  Issue No.2 & 3 are  answered.

In the given  facts and circumstances  of the case  we deem that the  detention   of deposited  amount by the  Opposite party for such long time  amounted to deficiency in service as  defined U/S 2(11)(8) of C.P. Act, 2019.

“Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection  shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required  to be  maintained by  or under any law  for the time being in force or has been  undertaken to be performed  by a  person a pursuance of a  contract or  otherwise in relation to any service  and includes-

(i)any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which  causes loss or injury to the consumer, and

(ii)deliberate withholding of relevant information by such  person to the consumer.

The Commission  hold that  the action of withholding  payment by the  Opposite party is not genuine. It is arbitrary and oppressive and is   a gross deficiency  in service  on the part of the  O.P. Hence the  complainant deserves  to be  compensated. In the views of the commission  the interest of justice  would met  if this Consumer award accrued  interest  from the date  of maturity till its realization.  In view of the  above discussion  relating to the  case in  hand  we allow  the above complaint in part.

Hence Order.

                                                ORDER.

Based on aforesaid findings, this  Commission allowed the  complaint and directed  the O.Ps to pay the  maturity value and other benefits   on 4(Four) Nos.   Q-shop  Certificate Nos. (1) 562010905760  (2) 562010905761  (3) 562010905762  (4) 562010913420  total maturity  value a sum of  Rs. 2,09,385/- inter alia with simple  interest @ Rs. 18% per  annum  from the  respective  date of maturity  i.e. Dtd. 16.8.2018, 03.09.2018  till  realization.

.       Since we award the interest on the amount due which has not been paid by the O.Ps after the due date of maturity, no further compensation is awarded. The O.Ps are directed  to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The OPs    are  ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  50 days  from the  date of  receipt  of this  order.                            

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated.

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 10^th. Day of   May, 2023 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                        PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON Dtd. 10.05.2023