PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

            2. The agent of the O.P. No.1 & 2 company came in contact with the complainant at Berhampur and allured him to own and purchase a scheme of the O.P. for future hospitality, benefits and incentives. The complainant has purchased a scheme under “Plan-H” on consumption of Sahara Q shop Unique Products of cumulative benefit of earned LBP for Rs.50,000/- of each product (Total two products) on 29.08.2012 and 31.08.2012 respectively. The O.P. Company has issued two numbers receipt i.e. (i) Receipt bearing No. 71014037942 and Certificate No. 562012881458 and (ii) Receipt bearing No. 71014037664 and Certificate No. 562010523249. After intermittently period was over and the complainant did not take the adjustment of advances in any kind under any circumstances under his duress also, so he is entitled to get bonus and other benefits based on specific pattern of “Q shop Plan- H” hospitality products i.e. Global advance amount of Rs.50,000/- as per their terms and conditions and for the purpose the O.P. company is liable to make disbursement for the final amount i.e. on 29.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 respectively. Now the complainant is in panic stricken period. The complainant has approached so many times before the O.P.No.2 to disbursement his legitimate claim, but the O.P. Company did not turn and all in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay maturity amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. The delay in filling of the present consumer complaint is condoned in accordance to the order in SMWP(C) No.: 3 of 2020.

           4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint, the Complainant was present and the opposite parties are found absent on repeated calls. We perused the complaint evidence, written argument and materials placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/-and will receive matured amount of Rs.1,40,000/-from the O.Ps on the date of matured. Hence, taking the materials on the case record as well as the sole testimony of the complainant into consideration, we hold that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Further Law is well settled in case of Mrs. Puneet Kaur versus Hindustan Financial Management Ltd. and others reported in 2003(1) CPR 274 where in the Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Non-payment of fixed deposit amount on its maturity by Financial Institution constitutes deficiency in service”. In another case when a company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the company providing to interested persons a safe avenue for investment of their fund with an assurance of prompt repayment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the company or firm is enabled to use the funds deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and depositor is clearly a consumer under the Act. The Opposite Party was directed to repay the guaranteed value of the deposits with interests @ 12% per annum till payment and to pay the cost- Shanker Lal Rathi Versus Neha Leasing & Holdings ltd. 1996 (2) CPR 90. 

         5. Moreover in another case the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in Adelkar Prathibha B. (Mrs.) & Ors V. Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in II (2015) CPJ 221 (NC) that “Complainant hired or availed services of O.P. for investing their savings in schemes floated by O.P. and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in Goat Farming and allied activities- Complainant are consumers, Remedy before Consumer Forum is primarily a civil remedy- Complaint maintainable. Failure on parts of financial establishment to honour its commitment- Deficiency in service – Unfair trade practice- OP is directed to refund the investment made by complainant in scheme floated by it”.

In the instant case, the opposite parties are remained silence over the issues of the complaint. The legal principle is that "silence may sometimes amount to admission" of fact. In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (2003):- This case dealt with customs duty evasion, and the Supreme Court observed that when a person, upon questioning, fails to provide any explanation or response, it can be inferred that they do not have any valid explanation, and their silence can be used against them.

On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law (Supra) the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,40,000/- only along with 9% interest per annum to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further the O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realization from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 01.09.2023 and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 27.02.2024