DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                        Complaint No. 5

Instituted on:   4.1.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     1.11.2019

Rekha Rani wife of Tejinder Kumar, resident of Ward No.7, Gahu Patti, Longowal, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara India Parivar, Near Manchanda Dairy, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148 001.

2.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Managing Director. 

             ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Harinder Pal, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate  

Quorum:   Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                        Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

ORDER:  

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.             Ms.Rekha Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the advice of the OPs the complainant availed the services of the Ops and deposited an amount of Rs.43,000/- in a Q shop Goods Plan H launched by the Ops, under which the Ops promised to pay an amount of Rs.86,000/- after a period of six years as such the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.43,000/- vide receipt number 071020040210 dated 31.08.2012 for the 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.43,000/-  along with interest @ 18% 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.43,000/- with the OPs, but it is denied that the OPs promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.86,000/- after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.43,000/- 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 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit,  Ex.Ops/2 blank form and Ex.OP/3 copy of blank application form and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the record, pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties submitted written arguments.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.43,000/- on 31.08.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Unique Products Plan-H-scheme, 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 Ops ever promised to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.43,000/- 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.43,000/- on 31.08.2012 with the OPs.  It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.43,000/- with the OPs with a term of six years and did not return the same as alleged with the incremental value of Rs.86,000/-. 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.43,000/- along with interest @ 9% 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.43,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 31.8.2012 till realization in full. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs and file be indexed  and consigned to records in due course.

7.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because post of President is vacant since 7.8.2018 and Lady Member since 16.09.2018. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.

Pronounced.

                        November 1, 2019.

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                   Member                 President