BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 52 of 2019
Date of Institution : 29.01.2019
Date of Decision : 13.8.2019.
Amarjeet Kaur aged about 68 years wife of Sh. Maan Singh, resident of H. No. 26, Gali No.1, Ward No.12, Preet Nagar Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sahara India, Near Jyani Hospital, Surkhab Chowk Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Manager/ Auth. Person.
2. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj Lucknow- 226024.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Lucky Duggal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that ops’ agent approached to the complainant and forced to purchase a policy and also disclosed the benefits of the said policy. On every type of assurance of ops’ agent, complainant purchased the said policy and deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- with the ops’ agent and he had issued a receipt No.071001600521 dated 7.6.2012. That after maturity of the said policy, complainant approached op no.1 and requested to pay the matured amount of the said policy but the ops as well as agent started to put the matter off with one pretext or the other and ops have flatly refused to pay the said matured amount of the policy. The complainant has suffered a great tension, pain, agony and disappointment for which the complainant is also entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith maturity amount besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant is claiming refund of customer I.D. No. 824842000109 through which she had advanced Rs.14,000/- under Q shop scheme to purchase the products of Sahara Q shop unique products range limited company. Under the terms and conditions of the scheme, there is no provision of payment of pre-maturity or maturity. As per clause-2 of scheme no interest is payable over the advance amount. As per the terms and conditions during the tenure of the scheme, the customer can get Loyalty Bonus Points on the purchase of products of the company. Q shop scheme is not a policy or fixed deposit scheme or interest generating scheme. The complainant did not make advance to get the interest over advance amount rather she had advanced to purchase the products of company. The claim of complainant is against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that complainant has arrayed Sahara India as op no.1, whereas Sahara India is a partnership firm and Q shop scheme has not been launched by this firm rather this scheme has been run by the company. As such present complaint is not maintainable due to mis joinder of necessary party and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That complainant has arrayed the company through its office situated at Lucknow, whereas she made advance at Sector office Sirsa of the company but she did not array the company through its Sirsa office. The agreement entered into between the complainant and the company at Sirsa office, therefore, office at Sirsa of the company is necessary party and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further submitted that tenure of the scheme is of six years and as the complainant did not purchase products of the company, she can get back advance amount only after completion of six years from the date of advancing money. The ops never refused to pay the advance amount. Except the advance amount Rs.14,000/-, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount, interest, compensation etc. The complainant had agreed to purchase the complete range of goods of the company chosen from brochures, which includes complete range of food products, processed food and beverages, personal care, home care, hospitality products, general merchandise, gold/ gold jewellery, diamond/ diamond jewellery, handicraft products and multi brand goods. The receipt of said advance amount alongwith booklet containing the details of consumer goods, the product code, sale price and loyalty bonus points on purchase value handed over to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant produced her affidavit and copy of receipt.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that it is proved on record that complainant had purchased a policy and deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- with the ops through their agent who issued receipt No.071001600521 dated 7.6.2012. After maturity of the said policy, the complainant requested the ops to make payment of maturity amount of the policy, but however, they refused to pay the same.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that complainant had advanced Rs.14,000/- under Q shop scheme to purchase products of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited Company and as per clause 2 of the scheme, no interest is payable over the advance amount. As per terms and conditions during the tenure of the scheme, the customer can get Loyalty Bonus Points on the purchase of the products of the company. Q shop scheme is not a policy or fixed deposit scheme or interest generating scheme. The complainant did not make advance to get the interest over advance amount rather she had advanced to purchase the products of company. He has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ms. Anjana Abraham vs. The Managing Director, the Koothattukulan Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., (2013) 4 CPJ 333.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for ops.
9. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. She has also tendered copy of receipt Ex.C1 in order to prove that she had deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- on 7.6.2012 with the ops. On the other hand, the ops have not led any evidence except tendering of written statement. Ops have not furnished even affidavit of any of the official of the ops in order to depose in support of their defence plea nor they have placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant did not make any advance deposit with the ops rather made payment in order to purchase products of the company. So it appears from the record that evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted and defence plea of the ops appears to be devoid of any merit. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for ops is of no help to the defence plea of the ops since the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the reported judgment. Non payment of amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops.
10. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make payment of maturity amount to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of maturity till its actual realization within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- 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 the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:13.08.2019. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
