Date of filing:-24/12/2020 Date of Order/Judgement:-24/01/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 103 of 2020.
Lingaraj Pradhan, aged about 30 years, S/o. Ambika Prasad Pradhan, Occupation. Student, R/o. Khajur Tikra, Bargarh, Ward No. 8, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... Complainant.
V e r s u s
Sahara India, Bargarh, Represented through its Branch Manager, Near Gurudwara Chowk, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
... ….. Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant: - :- Sri S.C. Sarangi, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- :- Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.24/01/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member (w):-
- The Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a bonafide customer of the Opposite party having its Branch at Bargarh rendering Services for the investors to pay Bank their investment money after maturity. The Complainant being impressed by the scheme of the Opposite party invested on amount to the tune of Rs. 55000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand) only under fixed deposit scheme on Dt. 09/08/2012 vide receipt no. 71012107262 expected it to be matured in the year 2018 with matured amount of Rs. 1,65,710/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred ten) only. When the Complainant approached the Opposite party for the said amount, the Opposite party suggested him to interest the maturity amount in another bond vide receipt no. 001551840 and the Complainant invested the same in the said bond and the said amount got matured on Dt. 29/09/2020. The Complainant approached the Opposite party to return Bank the said amount i.e. Rs.1,65,710/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred ten)only. But the Opposite party did not respond. The Complainant has also sent a notice through his advocate on Dt. 24/10/2020 but the Opposite party remained silent and did not refund the amount.
The Complainant being harassed filed this Complaint before this Commission.
- The case of the Opposite party is that the Opposite party is that the Opposite party filed written version submitting that the Complainant has filed Complaint for payments of the matured amount of Rs.1,65,710/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred ten)only without submitting the required documents. It has been pleaded that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate up on the dispute involved in the Complaint. That the Sahara (q) plan it is a commodity business wing for the Company for the marketing of goods on the advanced deposit Money. That the Complainant did not ask properly on in legal manner from concerned Branch office and filed the case directly before this Commission. This present Complaint is based on false and baseless facts with a malafide intention and therefore liable to be dismissed.
- Perused the documents filed by the parties and following issues are framed :-
ISSUES:-
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite parties ?
- Whether the Opposite parties are deficient in service ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?
Issue No.1:-
In this case the Complainant has deposited the money with the Opposite party and availed the service from the Opposite party. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get benefit from the above scheme.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2:-
In this case the Opposite party is that a Q shop plan H is contractual in nature and investor cannot be treated as consumers, However we do not find any weight in this submission as it is not a dispute between members of the Company, infact it is a dispute with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the Opposite party for particular period and refund of same along with benefits. As such the same certainly amount rendering of service under the Act. There is an element of deficiency of service due to non performance of the contract, whereby service of the Opposite Party has been hired, by the Complainant.
It is well admitted by the Opposite party that the Complaiannt has invested under the scheme.
In the present case the Complainant has deposited Rs.55000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand) only under fixed deposit scheme on Dt. 09/08/2012 for a period of six years on which certainly the Complainant must avail the interest. The Complainant again deposited Rs. 55,000/-(Rupees fifty five thousand) only on Dt. 529/09/2018 vide receipt no. 001551840 for a period of 2 years i.e. the date of maturity is 29/09/2020 and the matured amount sums to Rs. 68,992/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand nine hundred ninety two) only. The Complainant after the period of maturity contacted the Opposite party and also served pleader notice but the Opposite party remained silent. This proves deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party.
Issue No.3:-
For deficiency in service of Opposite Party the Complainant is harassed and suffered mental agony and entitled for relief.
Accordingly it is ordered.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite party. The Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,65,710/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred ten)only. Along with 7% interest from the date of maturity to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry 12% interest till realization.
Further the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Order pronounced in open court on this 24th January 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra) ( Smt. Anju Agarwal)
Dt.24/01/2023. Dt.24/01/2023
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r (w)
Uploaded by
(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)
Office Assistant.
