BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.150 of 2018
Date of Institution: 9.5.2018
Date of Decision: 16.1.2019
Sunil Bansal son of Sh. Murari Lal, aged about 50 years, resident of House No.680, Street No.12A, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana).
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India Main Branch, 2ndFloor, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1- Kapporthala Complex, Lucknow- 226024 (U.P.) through Authorized Person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.
Present:Sh. Subhash Chander, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties
(Opposite parties were exparte but allowed to join the proceedings).
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant after impressing with the schemes of ops has invested the amount of Rs.1,96,717/- in ‘Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited’ scheme. The ops/ company and its agents disclosed the complainant that in this scheme he can purchase the gold at market rate and he has to pay the amount under the scheme in 60 installments and on the date of maturity i.e. after completion of five years from the starting of this scheme, he may take gold as per the value of his maturity amount (i.e. the amount deposited plus the compounding interest @12% p.a.) or he can take his amount deposited under this scheme alongwith above said interest. The complainant deposited the first booking amount vide booking customer ID 248448700139 dated 18.8.2012 by depositing Rs.54,516/-. The complainant also deposited remaining amount out of total amount of Rs.1,96,717/- in installments till 31.3.2016 on the demand of ops and ops were legally bound to refund the amount of Rs.2,90,075/- as agreed by them. It is further averred that date of maturity has also expired but the ops failed to refund/ return the amount deposited alongwith agreed rate of interest till today. That the total amount deposited by complainant with the ops is still lying with the ops. The complainant alongwith his family members and friends visited the op no.1 at its office in Sirsa on many occasions but they failed to make the payment so far and they are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. That there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops towards the complainant. The conduct of the ops clearly shows their malafide intention against complainant and he has apprehension that they may usurp the amount deposited by him. Hence, this complaint.
2.On notice, initially opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.The complainant then led his evidence and when the case was fixed for arguments, the opposite parties moved an application for setting aside the exparte order. The said application was resisted by complainant and in view of the laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rajiv Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 35 (NC), the said application was dismissed, but however, the ops were given liberty to join proceedings at that stage.
3.The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of receipt Ex.C1 and copy of documentregarding transactions Ex.C2.
4.We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5.The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. He has also placed on record copy of receipt of Rs.54,516/- Ex.C1 and further copy of document of scheme showing various amounts deposited by him with ops on different dates in installments. The pleadings of the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as the ops have failed toappear before this Forum after notice to controvert the pleaof complainant. No doubt, the ops appeared after proceeding them exparte and moved an application for setting aside exparte order dated 26.11.2018 but that application was dismissed in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rajiv Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. IV (2011) CPJ 35 (NC) on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside or review its order, but however, the ops were given liberty to join proceedings at that stage. As such the evidence led by complainant also goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. From the evidence of complainant, it is proved on record that complainant has deposited the amounts with the ops on several occasions as per plan of the ops but ops have failed to refund the agreed amount to the complainant.
6.In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the maturity amount of Rs.2,90,750/- as mentioned in receipt Ex.C1 and document Ex.C2 alongwith agreed rate of interest from the date of maturity till actual payment as per terms and conditions of the scheme within a period of 45days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the ops shall be liable to pay additional interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum.Member President,
Dated: 16.1.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
