DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.235 of 04-09-2018

Decided on 28-05-2019

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Des Raj aged 44 years R/o 220, Ward No.17, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., 25-28 Floor 2, Plot No.209, Atlanta Building Jamnalal Bajaj Mag, Nariman Point, Mumbai (M.R.)-400021, through its Managing Director

Second Address- M/s Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd, Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow-226624 (UP), through its. Managing Director.

2.M/s Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd, Branch Opp. Silver Hotel Amrik Singh Road Bathinda, through it Branch Manager/Auth. Signatory.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar in person.

For opposite parties: Sh.Rajesh Duggal, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Sanjeev Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that opposite party made tall claims regarding its policy of Gold or in lieu thereof equal amount by advertisement in newspapers as well as pamphlets. Allured by these claims, the complainant purchased Gold/Payment in lieu of gold against equivalent of Rs.28,970/-, booked value Rs.46,360/- vide booking ID No.27004700014 FA code 883002, Redeem: Gold Coins (booked gold quantity 16 gms 22 karat purity) payable after 5 years.

3. It is alleged that the complainant deposited amount with opposite party No.1 at its Bathinda branch (opposite party No.2) from time to time. The details of payment are also furnished, reference of which is not considered necessary for solving the controversy.

4. It is further alleged that on completion of five years period i.e. in the month of June 2017, the complainant time and again approached opposite parties and also submitted them application/consent for payment duly filled in by their worker and made several rounds, but to no purpose. He suffered huge loss and harassment. For these sufferings, he has claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation in addition to refund of Rs.28,970/- with compound interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.2000/- as cost of complaint. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the preliminary objections that at the time of advance booking of Gold, terms and conditions of the scheme were read over and explained to the complainant. After fully understanding the terms and conditions, he agreed to abide with them and entered into agreement with the company wherein and whereunder Arbitration Agreement found place as clause-16. The parties are bound by Arbitration agreement to refer any dispute with regard to advance booking. The agreement is binding upon the complainant. He is bound to get redressal of his dispute, if any, through arbitration.

6. Thereafter opposite parties have replied Parawise wherein they have admitted the factual position, but it is denied that they harassed the complainant and caused him any loss or agony.

   It is also pleaded that no cause-of-action has arisen to file the complaint, rather the complainant has concocted story. He did not provide any document with regard to deposit of fee.

7. After Parawise reply, opposite parties made additional plea that the company launched Q Goldbank Plan Scheme with their specific terms and conditions mentioned overleaf of the Goldbank Purchase Form. The terms and conditions of the scheme were explained to the complainant. Accordingly, he filled Goldbank purchase form and agreed to abide with the terms and conditions. Opposite parties have reproduced some terms and conditions, reproduction of which are not considered necessary. It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.28,970/-.

8. It is further pleaded that the complainant willfully refused to receive the payable amount and claimed tax amount, but opposite parties wanted to deduct the income tax as per provision of Section 194A of Income Tax Act. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

10. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of payment receipts, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C13); photocopy of request form, (Ex.C14); his affidavit dated 4.9.2018, (Ex.C15) and photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C16).

11. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Achal Kumar Srivastwa dated 26.10.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of form, (Ex.OP1/2) and photocopies of tax deduction rules, (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4).

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

13. The complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

    It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that opposite parties never refused to pay amount, but the complainant was not willing for tax deductions. Now, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has freezed all the accounts of opposite parties. As such, they are not in position to make payment till accounts are freezed.

14. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

15. Admitted facts are that the complainant paid Rs.28,970/- to opposite parties. They were to release 16 gms gold of 12 karat quality or pay Rs.46,360/- after 5 years. They have not made payment on the plea that they were to deduct tax, but there is no evidence to prove that they offered payment of this amount after deducting tax. Moreover an amount of Rs.46,360/- was to be paid instead of Gold Coins. Therefore, it is not to be accepted that any amount deposited by the complainant was fetching any interest. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties is proved.

16. Although, as per scheme, the complainant was to get Rs.46,360/- or 16 gms Gold, but he has prayed for refund of his Rs.28,970/- deposited by him.

17. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.28,970/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till actual payment.

18. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    28-05-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member