Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/618/2018

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD, Sahara Q Shop unique Products Range Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Pawar

03 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/618/2018
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2019

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Asarphi Lal, Resident of House No.20/10, Village Kajheri, Sector 52, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     MD, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow – 226024.

 

[2]     Sector Manager, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Regional Office: SCO 1110-11, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

[3]     Regional Officer, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Regional Office: SCO 1110-11, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR. S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amit Pawar, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are, attracted by high returns to the extent of 18% on maturity, as projected by the Agent of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- with the Opposite Parties in the shape of FDR for a period 6 years on 07.09.2012. As per the Scheme, when on maturity, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to get his money back along with accruing benefits, instead of giving the money back, Opposite Parties told the Complainant to convert his aforesaid FDR for further two years with the company, to which the Complainant did not agree as he was in dire need of finance due to marriage of his daughter. Eventually, a legal notice dated 01.11.2018 (Annexure C-2) was got served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that Q Shop is not a fixed deposit scheme and no FDR was ever issued by the Company to the Complainant. The Complainant had simply made advance to purchase the products of the company. The account opened by the Complainant is related with Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited Company. Q Shop Scheme relates to purchase of products through which customer can purchase the products of company in every month for a period of six years as per his requirement through that money which is advanced by the customer at the time of entering into the scheme. There is no provision of payment of maturity amount and also no interest is payable over the advance amount. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Parties.
7.         Perusal of Annexure C-1 reveals that on 07.09.2012 the Complainant paid advance for Q Shop G Plan-H to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, but there is no mention of investment for six years. However, in the written statement, the Opposite Parties have admitted in Para No.4 that the Scheme in question relates to purchase of products through which customer (Complainant) can purchase the products of company every month for a period of 6 years as per his requirement through that advance money which he has paid to the Opposite Parties at the time of entering into the Scheme. Also, there is mention that there is no provision of payment of maturity payment. As per Opposite Parties, Clause-2 of Scheme specifically states that no interest is payable over the advance amount.
8.         It is out of our understanding that why the Opposite Parties never made any correspondence with the Complainant if as per the Scheme he had to purchase the products of the company every month for a period of 6 years. This itself is sufficient to prove the inactive approach of the Opposite Parties towards their gullible consumers/ customers. So far as the question of maturity payment is there, there is no mention with regard to the same in Annexure C-1.
9.         Undoubtedly, the Opposite Parties have admitted that they possessed Rs.40,000/- paid by the Complainant for a long period of 6 years on which certainly they must have availed the interest. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant did not avail any kind of services of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-honouring their own Scheme, non-explaining the terms & conditions thereof to the Complainant so that he could get benefit of the same for 6 years, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in the present unnecessary litigation, but has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the Complainant.  To our mind, the Opposite Parties must have refunded the amount to the Complainant along with interest, compensation and costs of the present proceedings.    
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt, till it is paid;

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.         The   above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of receipt, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  
12.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/09/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”