DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/16/2022

Date of Institution   : 07.01.2022

Date of Decision    : 03.05.2023

Deepika Rani, legal heir of her mother Kamlesh Rani, daughter of late Vishnu Dutt resident of H.No. 1079, Sekha Road, Near Jain Sabha Mandir, Ward No. 10, Barnala, District Barnala. 

                                      …Complainant Versus

1. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, City Sector, B-I-367, Guru Nanakpura, Opposite Petrol Pump, Kailash Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001, through its Branch Manager.  

2. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sector Office, Sahil Plaza, 4th Floor, Dugri Road, Near Libra Bus Service, Ludhiana-141003m through its Branch Manager. 

3. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, SCO No. 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 

4. M/s Sahara India Parivar, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Command Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 Uttar Pradesh, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director. 

                                 …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

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

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

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Deepika Rani legal heir of her mother Kamlesh Rani has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against M/s Sahara India Parivar and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. It is alleged that Kamlesh Rani the mother of the complainant invested in the Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited. It is further alleged that the mother of the complainant has died on 20.7.2019 and the complainant is the legal heir of deceased Kamlesh Rani alongwith her brother Pardeep as the father of the complainant has also already died. The brother of the complainant has no objection if the amount in question is allowed in favour of the complainant being legal heir. 

3. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties company advertised for public to get investment in Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited of opposite parties and assured maximum interest. It is further alleged that the opposite parties was approached to Kamlesh Rani and advised to deposit money in the said scheme of opposite parties. The opposite parties assured that a fixed interest per annum in the said scheme on the deposited amount as per the terms and conditions of the deposit plan H and the maturity amount will be paid to the investors and the maturity amount will be paid at home. On trusting the words of opposite parties, Kamlesh Rani deposited a total amount of Rs. 36,150/- in the said plan on 8.9.2012, 10.9.2012 and 12.9.2012 vide certificates Nos. 071029118106, 071029118132 and 071029118169. It is further alleged that after the maturity/death of her mother the complainant approached the opposite parties for the refund of maturity amount and on the advice of opposite parties 20.12.2019 the complainant surrendered the said certificates alongwith death certificate of her mother and aadhaar card of the complainant in the office of opposite parties as per plan of the said scheme. But the opposite parties did not issue any receipt for the surrendered documents. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties many times to get the refund and receipt of surrendered documents but on 10.10.2021 the opposite parties refused to refund the amount and issuance of receipt. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 84,000/- as maturity amount. The act of the opposite parties is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay a sum of Rs. 84,000/- the maturity amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization.

ii) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4. 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. 36,150/- 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 the complainant 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. 

5. In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Pardeep Ex.C-2, copy of death certificate Ex.C-3, copies of certificates/receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, copy of investment plan Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 20.4.2022 has suffered the statement that he does not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant. 

6. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 14.7.2022.

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

8. In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record affidavit of Pardeep Ex.C-2 in which the deponent stated that Kamlesh Rani the mother of complainant and deponent invested Rs. 36,150/- with maturity amount of Rs. 84,000/- in the Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited. Further, the mother of deponent has died on 20.7.2019 and the complainant is the legal heir of deceased Kamlesh Rani alongwith her brother i.e. deponent as the father of the complainant has also already died. Deponent further stated that the complainant filed the present complaint being legal heir of deceased Kamlesh Rani i.e. mother of the complainant and the deponent i.e. brother of the complainant has no objection if the amount in question is allowed in favour of the complainant being legal heir. The complainant further placed on record death certificate of Kamlesh Rani Ex.C-3, which shows that the Kamlesh Rani has died on 20.7.2019. Further, the complainant has placed on record copies of certificates Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 which shows that a total amount of Rs. 35,150/- has been deposited by the mother of complainant Kamlesh Rani with the opposite parties. 

9. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 14.7.2022.

10. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and the deposited amount with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the mother of complainant Kamlesh Rani has deposited the total amount of Rs.35,150/- with the opposite parties as per scheme vide Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6. 

11. However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection in their written version that opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In fact, this dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the opposite parties for a particular period and the refund of the same along with benefits. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Moreover, as per the Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 it is established that the deposit/investment certificates are issued by Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, which is not a multipurpose society limited. The objection taken in the written version of opposite parties regarding multipurpose cooperative society are not adequate. So, it is proved that the Consumer Fora (now Commission) has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

12.   Moreover, it is also mentioned in the written version that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the opposite parties were unable to make the payment to complainant and even the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment. Meaning thereby the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount of complainant in installments.  

13. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 35,150/- to the complainant being legal heir of her mother Kamlesh Rani alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs and Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. 

14. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

15. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       3rd Day of May, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member