BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.
Complaint Case No. 24 of 2022
Date of Institution: 2.2.2022
Date of Decision: 25.4.2023
Prem Lata aged about 39 years wife of late Ravinder son of Raj Singh, resident of village Jhojhu Kalan, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj Lucknow-226024.
COMPLAINT UNDER THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
Before: - Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President
Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.
Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.
Present: Sh. Pankaj Chhikara, Adv. for complainant.
OP already exparte.
ORDER:-
MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that she had deposited Rs. 25,000/-on 31.12.2012 vide receipt No. 071037316836 for a period of 6 years with the OP. But it is averred that the OP failed to make any payment despite many visits and requests of complainant. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to pay the said amount of Rs. 25,000/-along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.
2. Notice to the OP was sent through registered post and as per tracking report, the delivery of notice was found confirmed. But the OP failed to appear before the Commission and ultimately, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.2.2023 due to non-appearance before the Commission.
3. In the evidence, the complainant tendered affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence on 1.3.2023.
4. We have heard the exparte arguments of learned counsel of the complainant and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the complainant very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record by the complainant.
5. We have observed that in the present complaint, the complainant by filing her affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A), has corroborated the contents of her complaint as true and correct and has further placed on record receipt of deposit of amount of Rs. 25,000/-(Ex. C-1) issued by the OP under Q shop, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited in the name of complainant whereby the complainant had invested the said amount on 31.12.2012.
6. The learned counsel of complainant submits that the aforementioned policy receipt/certificate (Ex. C-1) was issued for Sahara Q Shops unique product range to be set at each city by the OPs and in case, the OPs failed to open the Q shop, can be surrendered for maturity as per face value after six years and accordingly, draws the attention of this Commission towards document (Ex. C-2). The perusal of document (Ex. C-2), which is “Investment plan in Q-Shop Plan H” clearly shows that the amount is to be refunded year wise i.e. after 3rd year, 4th year, 5th year and after six years. Further perusal of said investment Plan in Sahara Q Shop Plan H (Ex. C-2) shows that after six years, the investor was entitled for return of Rs. 2354/-on Rs. 1000/- investment. Thus as per this payment plan, the complainant is entitled to the refund year wise. There is nothing on file to rebut the payment plan (Ex. C-2). We have observed that the OPs have been failed to refund the amount even after filing of the present complaint in the year 2022 whereas the amount was deposited by the complainant in the year 2012 vide certificate (Ex. C-1). We are of the considered view that now the complainant cannot be deprived of taking the benefits of the same after six year plan as now six years have lapsed after the depositing of money. 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 the amount of Rs. 2354/-on Rs.1000/-each investment i.e. total return after six years as per Investment Plan in Sahara Q-shop Plan H (Ex.C-2) comes to Rs. 58,850/-approximately for deposited total amount of Rs. 25,000/-by the complainant vide FD (Ex. C-1).
7. So, by taking into consideration the Sahara Q shop receipt/certificate (Ex. C-1) and also taking into consideration the contents of affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) filed by complainant as true and correct, we are of the considered opinion that by not refunding the due amount as per said schemes to the complainant, the OPs seem to have acted in a deficient and negligent manner towards the complainant in not refunding the amount of above mentioned receipt (Ex. C-1). Accordingly, we direct the OPs to pay the above calculated total amount of Rs. 58,850/-of document/receipt (Ex. C-1). It is made clear that the OPs shall pay the above mentioned awarded amount to the complainant along with 9% p.a. rate of interest from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 2.2.2022 till its final payment.
8. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
9. The present complaint stands allowed in the manner as indicated above.
10. The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
11. Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dated: - 25.4.2023
