Delhi

North East

CC/58/2019

Shri Dheeraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India Pariwar - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 58/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Dheeraj Singh S/o Lt. Shri Dhani Ram, R/o H.No. 1164-E, Main HariomGali, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Sahara India Pariwar 678, 2nd Floor, Ekta House, Kabool Nagar,Shahdara,Delhi-110032   Commercial Office:- Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow-226020	Opposite Party

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

03.05.19 19.07.23 28.08.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Opposite Party had a para banking scheme under which the Opposite Party got deposited a sum of Rs. 63,750/-. The Complainant had invested Rs. 63,750/- on 11.12.12 under q shop plan i.e. known as plan H for a period of 72 months vide receipt bearing no. 71034718980, customer id bearing no. 824742006162. The Complainant stated that at the time of receiving money Opposite Party assured Complainant to release the maturity amount i.e. sum of Rs. 1,35,787/-approx on the same day of maturity which was in the month of December 18. The Complainant stated that in December 18 the Complainant did not received the amount and contacted at office of Opposite Party and Opposite Party assured the Complainant to release the amount as soon as possible. The Complainant stated that he again visited the office of Opposite Party and Opposite Party refused to release the amount of Complainant and when Complainant asked the reason the officials of Opposite Party started misbehaving with Complainant and giving threats to Complainant. The Complainant also served legal notice to Opposite Party dated07.01.19 but Opposite Party neither replied nor complied the plea of the Complainant. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party have false assurance that he will release the maturity amount i.e. Rs 1,35,787.5 on the date of maturity but Opposite Party failed to do so. Hence this shows deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to release the maturity amount with interest. He further prayed for Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 30,000/- for litigation expenses.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party that the Complainant had made advance payment of Rs 63,750/- with the Opposite Party vide certificate no. 562001008963 dated 11.12.12. It is submitted that after understanding the terms and conditions of the said scheme the Complainant had decided to make deposit by way of advance with the Opposite Party, under the scheme of Sahara Q shop unique product range Ltd. at sector office, Vivek vihar, Delhi of the office of the Opposite Party. As per terms and conditions of the said scheme the Complainant was entitled to purchase product of the company. There is provision to get the Loyality Bonus Point but the Complainant did not purchased the product during the policy period. The amount deposited with Opposite Party was not an investment nor any deposit scheme but the said amount was deposited in shape of advance.
3. The Complainant is not entitled to get maturity amount. The scheme is not related with scheme of maturity amount. It is wrong to say that any assurance was given to the Complainant to return of 235 % in 6 years against the advanced amount. The Complainant was demanding interest upon the advance amount whereas there is no provision mentioned in the said scheme for paying interest on the said advance amount made by the Complainant. It is also wrong that Complainant approached the Opposite party for getting maturity amount. The Complainant is entitled to get only LBP during the period of Policy only when the Complainant would purchase the product of the company from the Opposite Party and there is no provision of maturity of the said scheme and never asked ever by the Complainant for maturity payment amount of Rs. 1,35,787.5 as narrated by the Complainant.
4. The Opposite Party always make efforts for making payment as per terms and conditions of the said policy. It is further submitted that Q shop is not a fixed deposit scheme and no FDR was ever issued by the company to the Complainant. The Complainant had simply made advance amount of Rs. 63,750/- in the shape of advance whereby Opposite Party issued purchase certificate No. 562001008963 according which the Complainant is entitled to purchase product of the company and due to purchase of product, the Complainant is entitled to get LBP during the policy period. He had never advanced money to get the interest over advance amount. The Complainant has filed present complaint on the basis of concocted story. That the complaint as stated are absolutely false and baseless, hence vehemently denied. The Complainant is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Forum by characterizing the purchase certificate as FDR. It is relevant to mention here that as per the provision of clause of terms and conditions of scheme no interest is payable over advance amount. The Complainant is not entitled to get any type of interest over the advance amount as mentioned in the said scheme. It is wrong to say that the Complainant is suffered with mental agony, financial loss or harassment.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had deposited Rs. 63,750/- with the Opposite Party on 11.12.12 under q shop plan i.e. known as plan H for the period of 72 months. As per Complainant at the time of receiving money Opposite Party assured Complainant the maturity amount i.e. sum of Rs. 1,35,787/-. It is further stated by the Complainant that on the maturity Complainant did not receive maturity amount, so he approached the Opposite Party for the releasing of the maturity amount. Opposite Party refused to release the amount to the Complainant.
8. The case of the Opposite Party is that it is admitted that Complainant had made a payment of Rs. 63,750/- on 11.12.12 under the scheme of Sahara Q shop after fully understanding about the scheme. As per terms and conditions of the said scheme, the Complainant was entitled to purchase the product of the company. There is provision to get the LBP but the Complainant did not purchase the product during the policy period. The amount deposited with the Opposite Party was not an investment nor any deposit scheme and amount was deposited in the shape of advance. It is further stated by the Opposite Party that Complainant is not entitled to get maturity amount and it is wrong to say that an assurance was given to the Complainant to return the amount after 6 years. Complainant is entitled to get only LBP during the period of the policy only when the Complainant would purchase the product of the company from the Opposite Party. Opposite Party always make effort for making payment as per terms and conditions of the said policy.
9. In view of the above, it is admitted by the Opposite Party that they have received Rs. 63,750/- from the Complainant under Sahara Q shop scheme which is not any deposit scheme or FDR with the maturity amount. It is also clear from the condition No. 3 of the scheme, scheme was for 6 years. But there is no clarity in the terms and conditions of the scheme what will happen if Complainant does not purchase any goods from the Opposite Party as in this case whether money will remain with the Opposite Party and it will not return in future. In our view this is the case of unfair contract/unfair trade practice on behalf of Opposite Party. The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 63,750/- to the Complainant with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay  Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
10. Order announced on 28.08.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

( Anil Kumar Bamba)             Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President