Date of filling: 25/03/2019

Date of Judgment: 14/10/2022

Mrs. Ashoka Guha Roy(Bera), Hon’ble Member

            The instant complain case has been filled under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by SMT. SIMA SHAW being the complainant herein alleging deficiencies in service on the part of the opposite parties (Referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Sahara India Commercial Corporation, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 (2) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, at 120 D.H. Road, 1^st floor, Silpara Branch, State Bus Garage, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700063

            The brief fact of the case that the complainant being allured by the lucrative investments scheme of the opposite party. the complainant, time to time invested different sum in various scheme of the OP Company for a term of 10 years with the assurance of granted return, and accordingly by the year 2007 the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only with the OP under various scheme, lists of which as follows:- 

            Accordingly, the OP Company issued the above Certificates in favour of the complainant namely Rekha Saha and also duly acknowledged the payment of the receipts made to the op. Company.

That  after depositing the total amount of  Rs. 1,12,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand Sixty) only, till year 13.11.2007, the complainant being simple housewife waited eagerly for the maturity amount to be paid by the O.P. to her and such wait of the complaint was supposed to get ended by the year 2017 and was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,45,010/- collectively against the 22 number of  deposits made by her. That after the expected maturity date of the above bonds/deposits on several occasion the complainant had been to the office of the O.P. No. 2 i.e.at 120, Diamond Harbour Road, 1st Floor, Silpara, State Bus Garage, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 700 063 and met several officials of the O.P. including the Branch Manager of the O.P. but every time the Branch Manager of the O.P. took some time assured them by giving false promises and hope to the complainant, till date no single payment has been made to the complainant against the said  investment by the O.P. Even after receiving the notice dtd.23.5.2018 from the complainant, the O.P.s refused and neglected to give any reply to such notice. Lastly findings no other alternative the complainant lodged a grievance against O.P.s before the Consumer Affairs Department wherein the O.P.s were directed to attend a Tripartite Meeting on 05/02/2019 and asking them to pay the matured value of the deposits made by the company to here also the O.P.s kept silent and remained absent and so finding no other alternative the complainant was constrained to filed the instant complaint against the O.P.s praying for refund of the maturity amount 1,52,120/- along with accrued interest till date and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and such other reliefs.

​Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegation made out in the complete petition and taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and hence not maintainable as there was no cause of action to file the instant case and also denied the fact of unfair trade practice. The OP further stated that policies are regulated as per the terms and conditions and the complainant failed to comply his part of obligation of the terms and condition stipulated under Sahara Scheme Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. And therefore the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The OP2 further submitted that the payment could not be made due to dispute with SEBI the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court imposed embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of Companies on 21.11.2013 subsequently another petition filed by the Sahara Group of Companies to lift the embargo so that they can raise many from assert and run business but the same was rejected. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant.

The Ld. Advocate for the complainant files the following documents along with the Complaint Petition:

1. Original 22 number of Certificates bearing no. 10094951895, 10178646375, 10178653386, 10178653387, 10178653388, 10387795460, 10387795461, 10387795462, 10387795463, 10387795464, 10387795465, 10387795466, 10387795467, 10387795468, 10387795469, 10387795470, 10387795471, 10407737619, 10407737620, 10407737621, 10407737622.
2. Copy of 22 receipts.
3. Copy of letter dated 13.05.2018.
4. Copy of Postal Receipt and postal track report for letter sent to OP No. 1.
5. Copy of Postal Receipt and postal track report for letter sent to OP No. 2.
6. Copy of Postal Receipt and postal track report for letter sent to SEBI.
7. Complaint submitted to Assistant Director.
8. No. CA/G/CA/Estt/O/1G-1109, 1110, 111/18
9. Copy of Voter I Card of the complainant.
10. Copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant.

Whereas the Ld. Advocate for the OPs files.

1. Written Version.

From the complaint petition, evidence adduced by the complainant, following points have been framed:-

1. Is the complainant a consumer?

2. Are the OPs deficient in providing service?

3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as per prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All the points have taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant made a 22 number of deposits of total investment of Rs. 1,12,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only till the year 2007, with maturity amounting to Rs. 3,45,010/-by the 2017, against the said 22 deposits with the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 accepted the said amount and the OPs Company issued the certificates as noted above. Such deposits were made for 10 years.

Therefore, in our view the complainant is a consumer under OPs as per definition given U/s. 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986 and the OPs were the service providers of the complainant as per definition of U/s. 2(o) C.P. Act, 1986.

We find that admittedly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- vide certificate No. 10094951895, 10178646375, 10178653386, 10178653387, 10178653388, 10387795460, 10387795461, 10387795462, 10387795463, 10387795464, 10387795465, 10387795466, 10387795467, 10387795468, 10387795469, 10387795470, 10387795471, 10407737619, 10407737620, 10407737621 & 10407737622 under the various Scheme for a period of 140 months & 10 years with total accumulated amount of Rs. 3,45,010/- up to date interest as per norms of OPs. Admittedly this Commission has territorial and as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case. Admittedly the case has been filed within the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, we find and hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer under the OP Company.

Now, in order to ascertain, whether the OPs were deficient or not we have to consider theevidence of the complaint once again.

It is evident from the evidence of the complaint that the complainant invested / deposited  under various Scheme of the OPs being vide certificate No. 10094951895, 10178646375, 10178653386, 10178653387, 10178653388, 10387795460, 10387795461, 10387795462, 10387795463, 10387795464, 10387795465, 10387795466, 10387795467, 10387795468, 10387795469, 10387795470, 10387795471, 10407737619, 10407737620, 10407737621 & 10407737622 with its maturity value amounting to Rs. 3,45,010/- and OPs Company issued certificates.

            The specific contention of the OPs, due to case no. 412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 98122011of SEBI under jurisdiction of the Apex Court the payment has remained stopped temporarily. On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that inspite of the embargo has been imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the OP did not hesitate to continue/carry on with new investment plan under the Scheme of Sahara T Shop Unique Products Rang Ltd. The instant scheme was  opened on 30.08.2012 and continued further. Therefore, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the OPs.

In course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that non-refund of deposited amount along with interest caused severe harassment to the complainant for which the ops are liable to pay compensation.

The OP stated in its W.V. that the complainant violated the terms and condition stipulated under scheme of Sahara Unique Ltd., on argument the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant pointed out that the clause contained in the Certificate issued by the Scheme of Sahara Unique which is written on the reverse  page. Therefore since the OPs violated the terms and conditions of the Certificate it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the deposited amount. It is the deficiency of the OP not to make payment of the maturity in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the OP Company.

In our view, all the OPs are deficient in service for non disbursing the maturity amount of Rs. 3,45,010/- the complainant. And the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Hence, it is

O  R  D  E  R  E  D

that CC/192/2019 is allowed on contest against the O.P.s.

The O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 3,45,010/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. as agreed in the certificate from the date of maturity until realization.

The O.P.s are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within 2 months from the date of this order. In default of payment, the entire sum shall carry interest@9% p.a. till realization.

On payment of the sum by the O.P., the complainant shall hand over the original receipt/certificate to the O.P.

In default the Complainant is at liberty to file an Execution Application for enforcement of the final order before this District Commission as per provisions of Law.

Let a free copy be given to the parties concerned as per provision of C.P.R., 2005.