DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 499
Instituted on: 03.12.2018
Decided on: 01.03.2021
Pawan Kumar son of Amar Nath son of Jaggu Mall r/o Surjan Basti, Sunam Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited Sahara India Bhawan, 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow- 226 024 ( U.P) through its M.D.
2. Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited Sahara India Sunami Gate near Ram Mandir, Phirni Road, Sangrur Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Manager.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Davinder Sharda,Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES : Shri Sanjeev Goyal,Adv.
Quorum: Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
Shri V.K.Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President
1. Pawan Kumar, complainant (referred to as CC in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he availed the services of the OPs by booking the gold quantity of 16.00gm (22karat) and booked value of the gold was Rs.48960/-. The total net payable amount to the OPs was Rs.30600/- and the complainant can redeem the booked value after five years. As per the scheme the complainant deposited the total net payable amount of Rs.30600/- to the OPs. After due date of said scheme, the complainant submitted the original receipt with OP no.2 for redeeming the amount of gold coin. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the booked value of gold but they failed to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.48960/- along with interest and to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objection has been taken that the complainant is not the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant booked the gold for the purpose of earning huge profit which is purely a commercial transaction. Therefore, the present complaint is out of the preview of Consumer Protection Act and the complainant does not come under the ambit of Consumer and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that after understanding all the conditions of the plan on 17.09.2012 the complainant had booked 16 grams 22 Kt gold at that time the value of the same was Rs.48960/-. So as per the conditions of scheme he paid 62.5% of Rs.48960/- i.e. Rs.30600/- only and the claim of complainant for payment of Rs.48960/- is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of scheme as well as income Tax Act.
3. The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties by booking the gold quantity of 16.00gm (22karat) and booked value of the gold was Rs.48960/-. The total net payable amount to the OPs was Rs.30600/- and the complainant can redeem the booked value after five years. As per the scheme the complainant deposited the total net payable amount of Rs.30600/- to the OPs. After due date of said scheme, the complainant submitted the original receipt with OP no.2 for redeeming the amount of gold coin. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the booked value of gold but they failed to do so.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that after understanding all the conditions of the plan on 17.09.2012 the complainant had booked 16 grams 22 Kt gold at that time the value of the same was Rs.48960/-. So as per the conditions of scheme he paid 62.5% of Rs.48960/- i.e. Rs.30600/- only and as such he received discount of 37.5% of Rs.48960/- i.e. Rs.18360/- and the claim of complainant for payment of Rs.48960/- is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of scheme and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of receipt, which shows that the complainant got booked gold quantity of Rs.48960/- which was to be paid on maturity which the opposite parties failed to pay. The complainant has produced a copy of receipt Ex.C-2 which proves that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.48960/- with OPs.
7. It is proved on record that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.30600/- with the opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-2 and the opposite parties were to pay an amount of Rs.48960/- after the period of five years or to deliver 16 grams gold (22 Karat) but the opposite parties failed to pay the due maturity amount along with interest. Though the stand of the opposite parties is that no amount is payable by the opposite parties nor any amount has been offered to pay to the complainant, as such, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the booked value of gold amount of Rs.48960/- to the complainant on maturity. As such, the opposite parties are deficient in service by not paying the requisite maturity amount to the complainant and the Opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.48960/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. It is further directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.4000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Announced.
March 1, 2021
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)
Member President
