BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 671 of 2019
Date of Institution: 21.11.2019
Date of Decision: 03.08.2022.
Nisha Rani, aged 36 years daughter of Shri Sat Narain Garg, resident of Ishwar Colony, Opp. Chhaju Roshan Da Karkhana, Near Laxmi Narain Mandir, Anaj Mandi Road, Barnala (Pb.). ………Complainant.
Versus
- Sahara India, 1st Floor, Opposite Jhunthra Hospital, Near SBI Main Branch, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
- Sahara Q Shop North, Sahara India Complex, C-2, C-3, C-4, Sector-11, Noida, Uttar Pardesh- 201 301.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……. PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Surender Jakhar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a saving plan from Sahara Q shop namely Q-Shop Plan at Sirsa under which an amount was to be deposited with the ops and after six years, a particular amount was to be returned to the depositor alongwith interest. The complainant deposited amount of Rs.2 lacs on 31.8.2013 and she was assured by the official that on maturity i.e. after a period of six years, she will get Rs.4.70 lacs and they issued certificate bearing no. 933000004343, receipt no. 583000004346, Hologram No. 992103805272 customer ID No. 824843000416. It is further averred that on 5.8.2019, the complainant visited the office of op no.1 and told the officials of op no.1 that the above said plan is going to mature on 30.08.2019 as per the documents upon which the op no.1 assured her that an amount of Rs.4.70 lacs will be deposited in her bank account on the maturity of said plan. That when complainant did not receive the maturity amount on the date of maturity, she again visited the op no.1 and enquired about non payment of the maturity amount upon which op no.1 told the complainant that Managing Director of the Sahara India is facing trail at Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and she will get the payment after the trial is concluded and they cannot do anything. It is further averred that after some days the complainant again visited the ops but they denied the claim of complainant. That complainant has deposited her hard earned money with the ops and due to deficiency in service on the part of ops, the complainant has suffered mental agony as well as financial loss. 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/ customer ID No. 824843000416 through which she had advanced Rs.2,00,000/- 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 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 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. It is also submitted that complainant can get back only the amount that she had advanced to the company, no interest is payable. The ops never refused to refund the advance amount but it is the complainant who made demand of interest and she himself refused to get the advance amount and that no cause of action has arisen to file consumer complaint. 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, she had made advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and 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 her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copies of receipt/ certificate of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.
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.2,00,000/- with the opposite parties on 31.8.2013 vide receipts Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. According to complainant, this amount was to be matured after 72 months i.e. on 30.8.2019 and on maturity of the said amount, the complainant was entitled to receive maturity amount of Rs.4,70,000/- from ops. In the back of receipt of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.C1, it is clearly mentioned that maturity is after 72 months. It is also mentioned on the receipt Ex.C1 that against the deposit amount of Rs.1000/-, its redemption value is Rs.2350/-, against deposit of Rs.5000/- redemption value is Rs.11,750/-, against deposit of Rs.10,000/- its redemption value is Rs.23,500/-, against deposit value of Rs.20,000/-, its redemption value is Rs.47,000/-, against deposit value of Rs.50,000/- its redemption value is Rs.1,17,500/- and against deposit value of Rs.1,00,000/- its redemption value is Rs.2,35,000/- So, it is proved on record that after 72 months on maturity i.e. on 30.08.2019, the complainant was entitled to receive the amount of maturity of Rs.4,70,000/- against the deposited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the ops. The opposite parties have not led any evidence in support of its written version. The averments made by ops in its written version have not been proved by ops by leading and cogent evidence and therefore, simple version of ops without any supporting evidence cannot be relied upon. The ops have not proved on record that they are running any shop or complainant ever purchased any product from ops during the said period of six years. So it is proved on record that complainant is entitled to claim her amount after expiry of six years from the opposite parties which she claimed several times from the ops but ops have failed to return the maturity amount to the complainant.
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 she is bound to refer her 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. We found no substance in the plea of learned counsel for op as 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Virender Jain vs. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2010 decided on 23.04.2013 has held that dispute between Member and Society can be decided by Consumer Forum. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the case in hand and as such it is held that present complaint is maintainable against op under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. More so, as per Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as law laid down by our own Hon’ble Apex Court, the objections taken by ops in written statement are not at all maintainable and ops are liable to refund the maturity amount 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 op besides maturity amount of Rs.4,70,000/-.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of Rs.4,70,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% on the said amount of Rs.4,70,000/- from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as 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: 03.08.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
