Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/101/2018

Sahara India - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.C. Joshi - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Deepak Ahluwalia

05 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 101 / 2018

 

1.       Sahara India

          through Branch Manager, Shailesh Hotel

          Near G.G.I.C., Link Road, Almora

          through Authorised Signatory Sh. P.K. Singh, Manager (Legal)

 

2.       Deputy Managing Director, Kapoorthala Complex

          Sahara India Bhawan

          Aliganj, Lucknow

 

3.       Managing Director, Sahara Q Shop Central

          Sahara India Centre, 2, Kapoorthala Complex

          Aliganj, Lucknow   

…… Appellants / Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Sh. P.C. Joshi S/o Sh. Ramdutt Joshi

R/o Bimola, Syalidhar

Almora

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

Sh. Virendra Pandey, Learned Counsel for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                       Member-II

                             

Dated: 05/08/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Almora (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 114 of 2016; Sh. P.C. Joshi Vs. Sahara India and others, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellants – opposite parties were directed to refund the invested amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with upto date interest; besides to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of two months’ from the date of impugned judgment and order.  

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, on 28.09.2007, the respondent – complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the shape of F.D.R. in Sahara Unique Scheme floated by Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited and further invested sum of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 5,500/- respectively on 15.02.2014 in Sahara Q Shop Central Account      Nos. 820324000041 and 820324000042.  The complainant was working as Regional Office Bearer and Agent.  The above-mentioned F.D.R. was pledged with the company.  The payment of the accounts opened by the complainant, have been made and there are no dues against the complainant.  The F.D.R. of the complainant has matured, but the proceeds of the same were not paid by the company.  Thus, the consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission. 

 

3.       The appellant No. 1 filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that sum of Rs. 10,000/- was invested by the complainant in F.D.R., maturity date whereof was 28.09.2007.  The said appellant has got no concern with the amount invested by the complainant in other accounts.  The F.D.R. was pledged by the complainant with the company towards security and the same can only be refunded to the complainant on submission of No Dues Certificate, which he did not submit.  The appellant No. 2 filed written statement and stated that it has no relationship / concern with the complainant, nor the complainant is its consumer.  The appellant No. 3 submitted written statement, pleading therein that the amount of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 5,500/- invested by the complainant, has been claimed by him prior to the maturity date, in contravention of the relevant terms and conditions. 

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2018, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.        

 

5.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

 

6.       It is admitted that the complainant had invested a total amount of Rs. 21,000/- with the appellants in different schemes / accounts and the said amount has not yet been refunded to him.  On the date of hearing fixed in the appeal, i.e., 02.08.2022, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants filed copy of e-mail dated 02.08.2022 sent to him by the appellant No. 1, thereby informing him that the company is ready to pay the deposited amount to the complainant along with interest, as per company norms.  The relevant portion of the said e-mail is reproduced below:

 

“As per discussed legal department, this is inform you that company is ready to pay the deposited amounts Shri P.C. Joshi along with as per company rate of interest.”

 

7.       The District Commission per impugned judgment and order, has directed the appellants for refund of invested amount to the complainant together with upto date interest as well as compensation for mental agony and costs.  Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Commission was not justified in awarding interest as well as compensation towards mental agony.  He also submitted that it is settled law that interest and compensation for mental agony, both can not be awarded.  Per contra, learned counsel for respondent / complainant submitted that he has no objection against the amount offered on behalf of the appellants through   above-mentioned e-mail dated 02.08.2022, but in addition thereto, the complainant is also entitled to the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Commission towards mental agony, besides Rs. 5,000/- granted towards costs.

 

8.       The amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Commission towards costs, is perfectly justified and can not be faulted with.  However, so far as award of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony is concerned, it is well settled that the complainant can not get interest as well as compensation both.  In this connection, reference may be had to the following case laws:

 

1. Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India reported in II (2000) CPJ 1 (SC).  
2. Satelec Power Electronics Vs. HRDC reported in 2003 (2) CPC Page 1 (NC).
3. Rajpal Mahana Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2003 (6) CLD (SCDRC – Delhi) Page 201.

 

9.       Thus, in view of above law, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- granted by the District Commission towards mental agony, can not be maintained and is liable to be set aside and the complainant is held entitled to the refund of Rs. 21,000/- together with company’s rate of interest payable from the date of deposit till payment and Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Commission towards costs.  As such, the appeal is to be allowed in part and the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be modified accordingly.

 

10.     Appeal is partly allowed.  Impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the District Commission is modified.  The appellants are directed to refund the invested amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the respondent / complainant together with company’s rate of interest from the date of deposit till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs, so awarded by learned District Commission.  The parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                               President

 

K