DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 62/2020

Date of Institution   : 28.02.2020

Date of Decision    : 11.01.2021

 

Darshan Singh son of Sh. Bhag Singh resident of Baba Deep Singh Nagar, H.No. B-XIII-944, Court Road, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.     

                      …Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Branch Office, College Road, Under Bridge, Near S.D. College, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Lower Mall, Near Modi College Patiala, through its Sector Manager cum Branch Manager.

3. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Command Office: Sahara India Bhanwan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lukhnow-226024, Uttar Pradesh, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director Survot Rai Sahara. 

 

                …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

 

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Darshan Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties is a registered limited company and the opposite party No. 1 is the branch office of opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is further alleged that the opposite parties advertised for public to get investment in Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited in Plan-H and assured maximum interest on deposits on maturity. On trusting the words of opposite parties the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 12,250/- in the said plan. In this regard one receipt/certificate No. 071001633824 dated 14.5.2012 alongwith copy of investment Plan in Q Shop Plan H issued by the opposite parties. The complainant invested in the said scheme only to earn maximum interest. It is further alleged that the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 12,250/- with the opposite parties at Barnala and it is a six years plan. The opposite parties did not supply any terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the company. It is further alleged that after the maturity date the complainant surrendered the said certificate on 15.5.2018 with the opposite parties at Barnala through opposite party No. 1 as per Plan H of the said scheme. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 29,429/- as maturity amount and opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that the maturity amount will be brought by the opposite party No. 1 to the home of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the maturity amount. But the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately after few days they flatly refused to pay back maturity amount of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) To pay a sum of Rs. 29,429/- the maturity amount on 14.5.2018 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested an amount of Rs. 12,250/- under the scheme of the company at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but she willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copy of investment plan Ex.C-3. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 14.10.2020 has made statement that he does not want to file rejoinder and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to tender any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 28.9.2020. 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

7. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He has further placed on record copy of receipt Ex.C-2, which shows that an amount of Rs. 12,250/- has been invested in the Sahara Q Shop Plan H on 14.5.2012. He has further placed on record photocopy of investment plan Ex.C-3.

8. However, on the receipt Ex.C-2 nothing has been mentioned that the above said amount of Rs. 12,250/- has been deposited for a period of six years as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. Further, on Ex.C-2 nothing has been mentioned about the rate of interest. So, we are unable to understand that how the complainant has calculated the amount of Rs. 29,429/- as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. We have gone through the Ex.C-3 placed on record by the complainant and are of the view that this document has no link with the receipt Ex.C-2. Further, in Ex.C-2 nothing has been mentioned about the scheme plan Ex.C-3 to indicate that how much amount is to be paid after such term. So, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that he has deposited the amount of Rs. 12,250/- with the opposite parties as fixed deposit for six years as claimed by the complainant. But, on the other hand there is nothing on record from the side of opposite parties to rebut the case of the complainant by producing any cogent and reliable evidence. 

9. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 12,250/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 14.5.2012 till its realization. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.   

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       11th Day of January, 2021 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President             

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member