Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2227

SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANJEET SINGH CHHABRA - Opp.Party(s)

YASH VIDYARTHI

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2227 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 11.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.141/2017 by District Commission, Jabalpur-1)

 

1. SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCTS

    RANGE LIMITED) SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN,

    1, KAPURTHALA COMPLEX,

    ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (UP)

 

2. SAHARA INDIA PARIWAR,

    SECTOR OFFICE-JABALPUR CITY,

    SECOND FLOOR, AVTAR COMPLEX,

    MAIN ROAD, GORAKHPUR, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                 …      APPELLANTS.

 

                Versus

 

MANJEET SINGH CHHABRA,

S/O SHRI KHAJANCHAND CHHABRA,

H.NO.366, MADAN MAHAL,

GUPTESHWAR ROAD, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                               ….   RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                :       ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :       MEMBER         

           

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellants.

            None for the respondent though served.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On  11.07.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

 

                   This appeal filed by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-1 (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.141/2017 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent.

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant in the Sahara Q Shop Plan H Scheme on 31.07.2012 had deposited a total amount of Rs.6,35,900/- under six certificates  of which maturity was on 31.12.2016 and the maturity amount which was to be paid is Rs.11,97,317/- It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party despite making repeated efforts did not pay the maturity amount and therefore the complainant was forced to file a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties making a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to pay maturity amount of Rs.11,97,317/- with interest @ 12% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.

3.                The opposite parties/respondents resisted the complaint stating that the complainant after understanding the policy terms and conditions had invested the amount in “Q Shop Plan-H” for a period of 6 years by which he can purchase Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products. In case, he did not use the hospitality products up to 5 years he will get redemption of loyalty bonus points after five years from the date of deposit. There is provision of redemption of loyalty bonus only after 6 years from the date of deposit in case of use of hospitality products only. It is further submitted that as per condition no.2 of the scheme, there is no provision to provide interest on the amount deposited. Also there is no question of pre-maturity or maturity in Q Shop Plan-H scheme. The

-3-

complainant without any basis is trying to get interest on the amount deposited against the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party Sahara India Pariwar to pay the total amount deposited Rs.6,35,900/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of their respective deposits from 31.07.2012 till payment. Compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded. It is further directed that the aforesaid amount be paid within two months. Hence this appeal by the opposite parties.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for opposite parties/appellants argued that the complainant had deposited the amount under Q Shop Plan-H scheme and as per scheme, the complainant was entitled to get redemption of loyalty bonus only after 6 years from the date of deposit in case of use/purchase of hospitality products only. He argued that in clause 2 of terms and conditions of the scheme specifically provided that no interest will ever paid over the advance amount. But the District Commission brushed aside the above condition of the agreement and awarded paymnt of Rs.6,35,000/- with interest. He argued that the District Commission failed to consider the terms and conditions of the scheme, which specifically states that the customer is making advance for purchasing the

-4-

products of the company.  The customer agree to purchase the products per month for a period of 6 years, through advance amount and earn Loyalty Bonus Points (LBPs) on every purchase which shall be utilized as per clause 8 of scheme. He argued that the District Commission has failed to consider that Q Shop scheme is neither Fixed Deposit Scheme nor there is any fixed maturity amount and has passed the order for payment of maturity amount. He further argued that the District Commission has wrongly held that there was deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/appellant and therefore the impugned order is highly unjust and arbitrary. In support of his contentions he has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with copies of forms of the scheme. The complainant was not entitled to get any relief even then the District Commission has directed to make payment of deposits made with interest @ 8% p.a along with compensation and costs. He therefore prayed for dismissal of appeal.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the opposite parties/appellants and on going through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the complainant had deposited total amount of Rs.6.35,900/- on 31.07.2012 for a period of 6 years under different certificates and IDs.

 

-5-

9.                On going through the deposit slips we find that deposits were made under “Q Shop Plan-H” for the period and as per terms and conditions of the plan.  Total Accumulated LBP Benefit will be 2.3/2.26/2.35/3.84//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. Meaning thereby the redemption on loyalty bonus will be payable after 6 years that is too in case of consumption and used of goods and hospitality products. There is nothing mentioned in the said slips like maturity and pre-maturity.

10.              We have also considered the copy of forms filed along with applicaton under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Certain applicable clauses of scheme were already mentioned in the reply to the complaint filed before the District Commission. The aforesaid forms are also silent about maturity or pre-maturity. 

11.              The opposite parties in their reply have submitted that in case, the customer did not use the hospitality products up to 5 years he will get redemption of loyalty bonus points after five years from the date of deposit. There is provision of redemption of loyalty bonus only after 6 years from the date of deposit in case of use of hospitality products only.

12.              In such circumstances, we find that the District Commission has rightly allowing the complaint directed the opposite parties Sahara

-6-

India Pariwar to make payment of total deposits i.e. Rs.6,35,900/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of respective deposits i.e. 31.07.2012 till payment. In addition, compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

13.              Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is nothing with regard to maturity amount of the deposit made and therefore we are of a considered opinion that the District Commission has rightly compensated the complainant by making a direction to the opposite parties/appellants to pay the amount deposited by the complaint with interest from the date of deposit. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, it is upheld.

14.              In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                (A. K. Tiwari)                    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

             Acting President                            Member