Punjab

Sangrur

CC/462/2021

Shyam Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rohit Jain

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 462

 Instituted on:   30.03.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     02.01.2023

 

Shyam Sunder son of Sh. Chaman Lal Jain, resident of Mohalla Mahavir Nagar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur 148023.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Sahara Parivar, India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024.

2.             Ajay Kumar, Franchisee office Sahara Parivar, resident of Gali No.9, Prem Basti, Opposite DC Office Complex, Sangrur, District Sangrur 148001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For the complainant  : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.              

            For the OPs               : Shri Sanjeev Goyal Advocate

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops and deposited an amount of Rs.8000/- under Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited vide policy number 562-002903375 on 03.10.2012 for the period of six years and the Ops promised to pay on maturity an amount of Rs.18,800/- after a period of six years.  On maturity, the complainant deposited the original policy document with the Ops to get the due amount, but the grievance of the complainant is that the due amount was not paid to the complainant despite best efforts of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.18,800/-  along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of maturity and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the Q shop scheme relates to purchase of products and that the complaint is devoid of any merit.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.8000/- with the OPs, but it is denied that the OP promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.18,800/- after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.18,800/- from the Ops.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 copy of receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.  

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.8000/- on 03.10.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Unique Products Plan, which had tenure/term of 6 years as agreed by OPs in its reply.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the OP number 1 ever promised to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.18,800/- as mentioned in the complaint nor the complainant has produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support this contention. It is proved by the complainant vide Ex.C-2 that he had deposit Rs.8000/- on 03.10.2012 with the OPs.   It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.8000/- with the OPs with a term of six years and did not return the same as alleged with the incremental value of Rs.18,800/-.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that the OPs were liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.18,800/- on its maturity. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the Ops are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.8000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

6.             So, in view of our above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.8000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 03.10.2012 till realization. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                                Pronounced.

 

                                January 2, 2023.

 

 

 

       (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member           Member                    President