| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR Consumer Complaint No.84 of 2021 Date of institution: 26.11.2021 Date of Decision: 26.10.2022 Rajinder Singh S/o Raghunath Singh (Since deceased) through his Lrs:-Jagmohan Singh S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o vill. Malikpur Tehsil andDistrict Roopnagar , Punjab. …….Complainant Versus - Sahara India Priwar, Address:- 7 Sahara India Tower complex, Sahara India Bhawan,1, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lacknow 226024 Through its MD/ Chairman.
- Vikramjeet Singh, Agent/ Introducer of Sahara India Priwar, Address:- Branch Office Gulati Market, Railway Road, Near Punjab National Bank Nawanshahar
- Local Branch Office of Sahara India Priwar at SCO 5 Beant Singh Aman Nagar Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar, Punjab through its Branch Manager
……..Opposite Parties Complaint under Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM: Shri Ranjit Singh, President. Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member PRESENT: Sh. Kesar Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant Sh. Nitin Sharma, Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 3 OP No.2 ex-parte ORDER SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT - The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the deceased father of the complainant was also resident of the above said address who has been died on 18-07-2018. The complainant is the legal heir of his father. The OP. No. 1, 2 &3 were known to the father complainant who were running sahara India under the name & style of Sahara Q shop unique products and they met to the father of the complainant and told that they are dealing with very fine polices like Advanced For Q Shop G goods (Exist) plan H, so they induced, allured and enticed to the father of the complainant by telling that Sahara India Priwar has a very useful policy for customers like you . The OP. No. 1,2 & 3 also told that they will arrange the entire documentation for preparing your policy. So under the inducement, influence and allurement of the OP No. 1,2 & 3, the father of the complainant agreed to get the policies namely Advanced For Q Shop G goods (Exit) Plan H of Sahara India Priwar. On the assurance of all the OPS, the father of the complainant get the policy No. 071029101382 dated 26-09-2012 on the payment of Rs. 100000/- ( One lac), Policy No. 071029101612 dated 07-09-2012 on the payment of Rs. 65750/-(Sixty five thousands seven Hundred fifty ), policy No. 071020027556 dated 07-09-2012 on the payment of Rs. 9350/- (Nine thousands three seven Hundred fifty), Policy No. 071020020460 dated 07-09-2012 on the payment of Rs. 1,63,950/- (one Lac sixty three thousands Nine Hundred fifty), Policy No. 071024021054 dated 21-06-2012 on the payment of Rs. 13,800/-(Thirteen thousands Eight Hundred), policy No. 071029100334 dated 25-06-2012 on the payment of Rs. 071026586848 dated 12-06-2012 on the payment of Rs. 11, k700j /- (Eleven thousands seven Hundred). The OPs. Received the above said payments at the office SCO 5 Beant singh Aman Nagar Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar and the policies were issued at above said office. The maturity date of the said policies were after 72 months i.e. in the year of k2018 i.e. after due dates and maturity amount was Rs. 2,13000/-, Rs. 24,921/- and Rs. 19,916/-, Rs. 3,49,213/-, Rs.29,394/-, Rs. 24,921/- and Rs. 24921/- respectably each of the policy . Apart form it the father of the complainant was also get issued the policies. On the dates of maturity the complainant deposited the original policies with the OP No. 2 in its office at Rupnagar, who is now working at Branch Office Gulati market, Railway Road, Near Punjab National Bank Nawanshahar as branch Manger. The policies were given by the OP No.2 and the same were signed by its Branch Manager and given at the instance of OP No. 1. The OP . No. 2 told that the payment will be released after 10 days of the above said policies. So the complainant was waiting for 10 days. But after passing 10 days the payment was not given . It is submitted that the OPs has made the payments of some of the policies in the month of Feb. 2020 and March 2020 which are not subject matter of this case. The OPs No.1 to 3 are indulging in the unfair trade practice and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The request were made to the Ops for making the payments of the complainant .The OP No. 2 also undertakes that the payment of the complainant will be made till March 2020. He also gave the receipt of some of the policies that he has taken the original policies from the complainant by stating the each of policy numbers. Copy of receipt is attached herewith. But till today the amount of the policies have not paid by the OPs to the complainant. The OP No.1,2&3 harassed, humiliated, and misbehaved with the complainant suffered mentally , physically and monetarily due to act and conduct of the OP No. 1,2 &3. The complainant suffered loss amounting Rs. 8,05673/- which is amount of all the policies and 1,90,000 on account malpractices, unfair trade practice, deficiency of services of OP No. 1,2&3. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. to fail to return the amount of the CC has sought the following relief:-
OPs be asked to pay Rs.8,05,673/- along with interest and further sought Rs.1,90,000/- as deficiency in service. - In reply, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 stated that the company came to know that the complainant has filed above noted complaint with regard to the Q Shop plan H scheme which was floated and run by the complainant. Because, the complaint relates to company’s scheme, the company is hereby filing its reply before this Hon’ble Commission. Present complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of company which is necessary party, consequent to that complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further submitted that the opposite parties Sahara India Pariwar is neither juristic person nor legal entity. It is not a registered body either as company or society. It is mere a symbolic name of Group of Companies and Societies. According to the principles of law any suit or complaint can be filed only against legal entities. Therefore , present complaint is not maintainable due to mis-joinder of Sahara India Pariwar Which is unnecessary party, consequent to that complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. As alleged in complaint petition the complainant refund of advance amount which he had allegedly advanced under Q shop plan H scheme. The important facts relating to Q shop plan H scheme which will help for making fair justice, has to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Commission which are as under:
That a dispute regarding jurisdiction of SEBI was arise between Sahara Group of companies-Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) & Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) and securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. 3. Upon notice, the OP No.3 has choosen to remain exparte. 4. The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and have closed the evidence. 5. The complainant has submitted various receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 issued by the Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited, which shows that the complainant paid the amount to the Ops. After perusal of the complaint as well as the version of the OPs and the evidence on record, we feel that CC has brought sufficient evidence on record to prove the case of the complainant. 6. In view of the discussion made above, it is ordered that the OPs. To pay Rs. 8,05,673/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum jointly and severally (Ops No.1 to 3) from the date of filing of this complaint. The OPs are further burdened to pay a compensation amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room. October 26, 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) -
CC No.84 of 2021 Sh. Nitin Sharma, Adv. counsel for OPs No.1 & 3 OP No.2 exparte Vide our detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room. October,26 2022 (Ranjit Singh) (Ranvir Kaur) | |
