Delhi

North East

CC/234/2018

Mithai Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara India - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 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. 234/18

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mithai Lal, S/o Shri Shiv Pujan, R/o H.No. B-106/F-3, Dilshad Colony, East Delhi Delhi 110095		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.       3.	Sahara India 488/5A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095   Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Vivek Vihar New Delhi 110032   Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow 226024		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.11.2018 21.07.2023 12.09.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that in the month of January, representative of Opposite Party No. 1 met with the Complainant and insist the Complainant to invest an amount of Rs. 11,450/-in the form of FDR bearing no. 07103-4718052 dated 29.09.2012, which was scheduled to be matured on 18.08.2018 and as per the terms and conditions of the said FDR, the maturity amount of Rs. 23,373/- had to be released on the its presentation by the Complainant before the Op No. 1. After that the Complainant opened an account with the Opposite Party No. 2 vide account no. 24744000066 on 15.01.2011 and bought an FDR. The date of maturity was 18.08.2018 and the maturity amount wasRs. 23,373/- had to be released. On 29.08.2018, Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 1 for encashment of the said FDR after its maturity but Opposite Party No. 1 refused for the payment and suggested the Complainant to deposit/extend the same for the next two years. Complainant stated that he requested to the Opposite Party No. 1 to release the maturity amount but all in vain.  Complainant stated that his FDR maturity amount would not be credited into his account on any ground or a single penny/paisa from his FDRs face value would be withdrawn on any ground or at any cost. Complainant dialled 100 number to call the PCR in the office of Opposite Party No. 1 but the efforts of the Complainant again gone in vain as the local police refused to handle the matter. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. On 05.10.2018 Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties and the same was served on them but despite after passing of the notice no word or no payment in this regard had been received by the Complainant. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the maturity amount of the FDR in question and damages of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the company is not an FDR rather is a “Purchase Certificate” which authorized the Complainant to purchase the products of the value of certificate. The Complainant is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Forum by characterizing the “Purchase Certificate” as FDR. It is wrong to say that the Complainant had deposited money in the shape of FDR. The Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties. It is wrong the say that any FDR was issued to the Complainant or the same got matured on 28.08.2018. There is no provision of maturity under the terms and conditions of scheme. It is wrong to say that maturity amount of FDR is           Rs. 23,373/-. It is also wrong to say that the Complainant submitted original FDR or Receipt or the Opposite Party No. 3 issued receipt of receiving. It is also wrong to say that the Opposite party No. 3 forced the Complainant to renew the FDR for two years. It is wrong to say that the Opposite Party No. 3 assured the Complainant for releasing maturity. It is wrong to say that the Complainant requested number of times for payment. The Complainant is not entitled to get maturity amount, as claimed by him. There is no provision of payment of maturity or interest under the terms and conditions of scheme. The true fact is that the Complainant himself advanced money after understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme to purchase the products of the company not to get interest. It is submitted that the Complainant is an educated person and has signed the documents after listening and understanding the contents of the same. The Complainant had wilfully advanced under “Q Shop” scheme the details of advance is as under :

Amount	Date of advance	Customer I.D No.	Receipt No.
Rs. 11,450/-	29.09.2012	824742005256	71034718052

 

3. It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties never promised the Complainant to pay any amount after completion of tenure i.e. 06 years. It is submitted that any customer of Q Shop scheme can purchase goods of the company which is also mentioned in the general terms and conditions of the Q Shop scheme. The Opposite Parties never informed the Complainant that he would get Rs. 23,373/-. The Complainant is not entitled to get Rs. 23,373/- or interest from the Opposite Parties. It is submitted that as per the provision of clause 2 of terms and conditions of scheme- no interest is payable over advance amount. The Complainant never surrendered the original Purchase Certificate or Receipt before the Opposite Parties. The statement given by the Complainant is absolutely false. The Complainant is put to strict proof to prove his averments as alleged in his complaint. It is further submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties as there is no relation of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the present consumer complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

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

Evidence of the Complainant

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

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. To support its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of Shri Sajjad Hussain, Sector Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties for addressing arguments despite grant of the opportunities. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he had deposited Rs. 11,450/- with Opposite Parties in the form of FDR. As per terms and conditions of the said FDR, the maturity amount of Rs. 23,373/- had to be released. It is stated by Complainant that till date no benefit under the said FDR has been provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and the amount of Rs. 11,450/- paid by Complainant was still lying with the Opposite Party. It is further stated by the Complainant that Opposite Parties neither provide any benefit of the said FDR to Complainant nor had refunded or returned the said amount to Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
8. The case of the Opposite Parties is that it is admitted that Complainant had deposited Rs. 11,450/- with them. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that the certificate issued by the company is not an FDR rather is a “Purchase Certificate” which authorized the Complainant to purchase the products of the value of certificate. It is stated that there is no provision of payment of maturity or interest under the terms and conditions of scheme.  It is wrong to say that Opposite Parties are assured the Complainant for releasing maturity and there is no provision of any interest payable under the terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get only advance money paid by him as per terms and conditions of the said scheme. Opposite Parties never refused to the Complainant for making payment as per terms and conditions of the plan.
9. In the present case, it is admitted by the Opposite Parties that they are received Rs. 11,450/- from the Complainant and they ready to pay the amount to the Complainant but they neither paid nor offered the amount paid by Complainant to the Complainant during the proceedings of this matter. It is also clear from the document provided by the Complainant that money deposited by the Complainant was not an FDR and there was no maturity date mentioned on the said certificate.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 11,450/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation cost along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.   
11. Order announced on 12.09.2023

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