Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/53/2021

Smt. Shakuntala Devi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pankaj Chhikara

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 53 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 1.3.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 3.2.2023

 

Smt. Shakuntla Devi age about 53 years wife of Duli Chand, House No. 151, Nagwan Mohalla, Choti Bajari, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

1. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Regd. Office, Sahara India, Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024.
2. Branch/Sector Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Rohtak Road, near Oriental Insurance Bank of Commerce, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri

 

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Pankaj Chhikara, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Manoj Kumar, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER:-

              

                  MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

 

                 Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that she had purchased Four Q shop policies from the OPs and invested/deposited total sum of Rs. 55,900/-with the company. But it is averred that the OPs failed to make any payment despite many visits and requests of complainant. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 55,900/-along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.          Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement stating that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the answering respondents. It is averred that the OPs were the society duly registered under the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and the complainant is member of the society. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. The opposite party is not collecting the funds from the general public for the purpose of investment, rather the members of the society made contribution to the society and the payment if any the same was strictly payable as per terms and conditions of the contribution. It is averred that the complainant never approached to the OPs for the amount which he has claimed. The complainant has no right to claim against the terms of agreement. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Hon’ble Commission and accordingly, dismissal of complaint been sought by the OPs.

3.         In the evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit as Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence on 4.8.2022.

              On the other hand, the counsel for OPs requested to read the written statement as their evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs on 22.12.2022.

4.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

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 four certificates for deposit of amount i.e. for Rs. 17,000/-(vide Ex. C-1), for Rs. 14,250/-(vide Ex. C-2), for Rs. 6000/-(vide Ex. C-3) & for Rs. 18,650/-(vide Ex. C-4) under Q shop issued by the Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited. We have observed that receipts/certificates of deposit of amount (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4) have been issued in the name of complainant Shakuntla and receipt/certificate of deposit of amount (Ex. C-5) stands in the name of one Duli Chand who is not complainant in the present complaint and hence, the complainant Shakuntla Devi is not entitled for the relief relating to document/certificate (Ex. C-4). In this way, it stands clear that the complainant deposited total amount of Rs. 38,900/-only with the OPs.

6.        The learned counsel of complainant submits that the aforementioned policy receipt/certificate 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 a document, which is considered and taken on record as Annexure-1. The perusal of Annexure -1, which is “Investment plan in Q-Shop Plan H” clearly shows that the amount is to be refunded year wise i.e. after 3^rd year, 4^th year, 5^th year and after six years. Further perusal of said investment Plan in Sahara Q Shop Plan H (Annexure-1) 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 (Annexure-1). We have observed that the OPs have been failed to refund the amount even after filing of the present complaint in the year 2021 whereas the amount was deposited by the complainant in the year 2012 vide certificates (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4). 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 (Annexure-1) comes total to Rs. 91,570/-approximately for deposited total amount of Rs. 38,900/-by the complainant vide FDs (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4).

7.            So, by taking into consideration the Sahara Q shop receipt/certificates (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4) 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 receipts (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4). Accordingly, we direct the OPs to pay the above calculated total amount of Rs. 91,570/-of certificates/receipts of deposit (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4).  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. 1.3.2021 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: - 3.2.2023

 

                         (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                                  (Manjit Singh Naryal)

                             Member                                                 President,

                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.