IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                                             CASE No.  CC/141/2019

 Date of Filing:                           Date of Admission:                              Date of Disposal:

   18.09.2019                                         26.09.2019                                          10.01.23

Complainant:  1.  Jullu Sekh

                                S/O Nur Mahammad Sekh,

                    Vill-Piyarapur, PO-Sanmatinagar,

                     PS-Raghunathganj, Pin-742213

             2. Togori Bibi

W/O Jullu, Vill Pitarapur,

 PO-Sanmatinagar, PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742213

3. Nasir Sk

S/O Jillar Rahaman,

Vill Pitarapur,

PO-Sanmatinagar, PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742213

4. Jamirul Sk

S/O Jullu Sk, Vill Pitarapur,

PO-Sanmatinagar, PS-Raghunathganj,

 Pin-742213

5. Selina Bibi

W/O Bashir Ali,

VILL&PO-Dafarpur, PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742227

6. Matibur Sk

S/O Kuran Molla,VILL&PO-Dafarpur,

PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742227

7. Najema Khatun

D/O Matibur Sk,

VILL&PO-Dafarpur, PS-Raghunathganj,

Pin-742227

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party1.Franchisee Manager,

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Jangipur (6153),  

                        Raghunathganj Hospital Road,

                        Gate No. 1,

           P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj,

           Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin-742225.

                         2. Sector Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar,

                        Swarnomayee Bazar,

                        Station Road,

                        P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore

                        Dist- Murshidabad

                        Pin-742101

                        3. Zonal Manager

                        Sahara India Pariwar

                        Sahara India Sadan

                        2A Shakespeare Sarani,

                        Kolkata-700071.

                        4. Head Manager

                        Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited

                        Sahara India Bhawan 1 Kapoor Thala Complex Aligang

                        Lucknow 226024

Agent/Advocate for the Complainants                       :           Monohar Mitra

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           Saugata Biswas

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.    

                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                           Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Jullu Sekh and Ors. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Franchise Manager, Sahara India Pariwar, Jangipur (6153) & Ors. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainants filed the instant petition stating that they had invested total Rs. 4,91,800/- under the plan of “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”]. The synopsis of their plans are given below:-

The O.P.s undertook to pay interest of the invested amount as per the terms and conditions of the plan under “ Q Shop Plan- H” [“Plan-H”]. As per petition of the Complaint the aforesaid amounts were matured on the aforesaid dates. But, in spite of proper investment the Opposite Parties had denied to pay the matured amount. The Complainants several times approached the Opposite Parties but failed.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 11,57,869/-as maturity amount along with interest  and litigation cost totaling Rs.12,07,859/-  

Defence Case

After due service of the notices O.P.s appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as it is not true that the recurring term was over on 10.08.2018 and the Complainant never submitted any documents to the O.Ps. which are necessary for liquidation of matured amount. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.s. 

Points for decision

1. Are the Complainants consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

 We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

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

It is the case of the Complainants that they filed the instant petition stating that the Complainant No. 1, Jullu Sekh had invested Rs. 177150/-, being Account No. 861532014278, Date of Maturity 03.11.2018, Maturity Amount Rs. 4,17,073/-,  and  Rs. 15850/-,  being Account No. 861532003404, Date of Maturity 31.05.2018, Maturity Amount Rs. 37316/-, the Complainant No. 2, Tagori Bibi had invested Rs. 1,26,550/- being Account No. 861532014277, Date of Maturity 03.11.2018, Maturity Amount 2,97,943/- and Rs. 15,550/-, being Account No. 861532008433, Date of Maturity 16.06.2018 Maturity Amount Rs. 36,610/-, the Complainant No. 3, Nasir Sk had invested Rs. 21,600/- being Account No. 861532002521, Date of Maturity 04.09.2018, Maturity Amount 50,854/-, the Complainant No. 4, Jamirul Sk  had invested Rs. 50,650/- being Account No. 861532014276, Date of Maturity 03.11.2018, Maturity Amount 1,19,248/- and Rs. 15,850/-, being Account No. 861532002380, Date of Maturity 14.05.2018 Maturity Amount Rs. 37,316/-, the Complainant No. 5, Selina Bibi had invested Rs. 11,350/- being Account No. 861532003403, Date of Maturity 31.05.2018, Maturity Amount 26,722/- and Rs. 31,550/-, being Account No. 861532014411, Date of Maturity 22.11.2018 Maturity Amount Rs. 74,280/-, the Complainant No. 6, Matibur Sekh had invested Rs. 12,300/- being Account No. 861532001269, Date of Maturity 31.08.2018, Maturity Amount 28,959/-, the Complainant No. 7, Najema Khatun had invested Rs. 13,400/- being Account No. 861532001270, Date of Maturity 31.08.2018, Maturity Amount 31,548/-.

The point to be noted is that the Complainant filed the evidence on affidavit.  In support of her contentions made in the complaint, the Complainant has filed photocopies of the Certificates bearing Nos. 861532014278, 861532003404, 861532014277, 861532008433, 861532002521, 861532014276, 861532002380, 861532003403, 861532014411, 861532001269 and 861532001270. It is evident from said Certificates that the Complainant had invested said amount ‘under “Q Shop Plan-H” ( “PLAN-H”) for the period as per terms and conditions of the plan. Total Accumulated LBP Benefit will be 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97/4.06 times of Global Advance and it is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products.’

The Ld. Advocate of the O.P.s stated in the W/V that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt petitioner © No. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813/2011 with contempt petition (Civil) No. 413 of 2012 in C/A No. 9833/2011 (SEBI us Sahara India Real Estate Company Ltd & others) passed on 21.11.2013 wherein following order has been passed:-

“We are Convinced that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit in such circumstance, we direct that the Sahara Group of Companies shall not…. with any movable and immovable properties until further orders”.                      

     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the Complainant and the argument advanced the Ld. Counsel of both the parties we are of the view that there are numerous Complainants and their deposited amounts are different and the dates of maturity of such investments are different and what would be the total accumulated LBP Benefit is not clear to us.  The complainants had invested different amounts on different dates for their financial gain. It is not out of the place to mention that they had filed the instant case claiming their deposited amount as per the terms and condition of the O.Ps. But it is not possible by this Commission to calculate the maturity amounts under “Q SHOP PLAN-H” from the documents filed by the complainants. As per the petition of complaint the complainant in order to get the matured value against their investment visited the office of the Ops. As the O.P.s had not returned the due amount to the complainants on demand so, in our considered view not paying the matured amount falls under deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. So, the Complainants should get the matured amount as per terms and conditions of the certificates issued by the O.P.s    

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 18.09.2019 and admitted on 26.09.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.        

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

 Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/141/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

The O.P.s are directed to pay the principal amounts along with the interest payable as per the terms and conditions of the Certificate issued by them on production of the original documents within 120 days from the date of passing this order.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

                  Member

               Member                                  Member                                                         President.