BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.676 of 2019
Date of Institution: 26.11.2019
Date of Decision: 30.03.2022.
Amit Goyal aged about 34 years son of Sh. Harbans Lal, R/o 13/ 424, Lane-5, Gobind Nagar, Hisar Road, Sirsa. ………Complainant.
Versus
- Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India Main Branch, 2nd Floor, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Sahara Q Shop Unique Products, Branch Located at adjoining Jyani Hospital, Near State Bank of India Main Branch, 2nd Floor, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
- Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapporthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024 through Authorized Person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Subhash Chander, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs) on the averments that complainant got deposited his saving amount with op no.1 in the shape of one FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.10.2012 and op no.1 i.e. local branch of ops issued the receipt No. 7109115901 dated 5.10.2012. The maturity value of the amount was Rs.2,35,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,35,000/- as interest up to the date of maturity i.e. 5.10.2018. That total amounts lying deposited with the ops. At the time of depositing of the amount, the Manager and agents of ops/ company assured the complainant that amount deposited will be definitely repaid alongwith agreed rate of interest. It is further averred that complainant has visited the ops lastly in the month of August, 2019 and ops assured to refund the amount within two month but they failed to make the payment so far and they are lingering on the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant has fulfilled all the terms and conditions for getting refund of the amount but the ops are intentionally lingered on the matter. The complainant has also come to know that ops have obtained the money from complainant by playing a fraud with him and after making false promises and assurances and complainant also reserves his right to initiate criminal/ legal action against the ops. That ops are legally bound to make the payment of above said FDR alongwith future interest as per agreement and otherwise, complainant is legally entitled to get the money back alongwith interest @24% per annum. That there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Ops were served and they filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer of Ops as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the complainant and Ops. The ops are Society duly registered under ‘Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is a member of Society. Thus, relation between the complainant and ops is of Member and society. Therefore, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Neither the complainant paid or promised to pay any consideration/ money nor the society charged any consideration/ money from complainant. That OPs no.2 and 3 Sahara India Pariwar is not a legal entity rather it is a mere symbolic name of different companies and socities. Therefore, legally any suit or complaint is not maintainable against Sahara India Pariwar and thus present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That if the complainant who is a member of Society has any grievance or dispute with the Society, the complainant is bound to refer his dispute before Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement under clause 11 of the scheme Sahara A. It is further submitted that complainant is claiming refund of receipt No. 71019987222 through which he had advanced Rs.22,750/- 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 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 he had advanced to purchase the products of the company. The claim of complainant is against terms of the agreement. It is also submitted that complainant has arrayed the company through its office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, due to non impleadment of any authority of the company through its office at Chandigarh, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and as such complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated. In additional pleas, it is submitted that complainant had gone through the terms and conditions of the scheme Q Shop scheme and after understanding the same, he had made advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.10.2012 for a period of six years at Sector office Sirsa of the company. 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, was handed over to the complainant. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of receipt of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.C1.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that written statement may be read into evidence of ops.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
6. It is undisputed fact that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite parties on 05.10.2012 vide receipt Ex.C1. According to complainant, FDR was to be matured after 72 months i.e. on 5.10.2018 and on maturity of the said FDR, the complainant was entitled to receive maturity amount of Rs.2,35,000/- from ops i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,35,000/- as interest thereon.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that as per scheme of the company, complainant is not entitled to file a consumer complaint rather he is bound to refer his dispute before the Arbitrator as per arbitration agreement. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant has contended since remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, so complaint filed by present complainant is very much maintainable. No doubt, it is evident from the receipt Ex.C1 that complainant has purchased plan-H vide receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and there may be procedure for arbitration proceedings, but since arbitration proceeding has not been started by any of parties and moreover remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and complainant can opt for this remedy, so it cannot be said that present complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, ops have not placed on file any scheme or arbitration agreement executed between the parties, so the plea of ops has no substance.
8. The opposite parties have not placed on file any terms and conditions of the policy/ scheme to show that this is not investment policy and complainant can only purchase products of the company under this scheme. The ops have not shown that during the period of deposit i.e. for six years, the complainant ever purchased any product from ops or availed any benefit under the scheme or availed any kind of service of ops, therefore, it is proved on record that complainant deposited the above said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to earn interest thereon for the period of six years. Moreover, ops have not led any evidence in support of their version. Though, complainant has claimed maturity value of Rs.2,35,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,35,000/- as interest thereon but however, maturity amount is not mentioned in the receipt of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, it will be in the fitness of things if the ops are directed to make payment of deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment to the complainant. Non payment of amount of complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of ops and as such complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses from the ops
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 5.10.2012 till actual payment. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced Member Member President,
Dated: 30.03.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
