DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,SANGRUR.

                                                                  Complaint No. 400                          

                                                                   Instituted on:   29.07.2019

                                                                   Decided on:     05.09.2022

Reena Mittal wife of Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Mittal resident of New Grain Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.  

                                                  …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited Sahara India Bhawan,  1-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226 024 through its Managing Director.

2.     Sahara India Parivar, Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Near Binni sound, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh-148026, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     Raj Kumar Garg, authorized agent,  Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh-148026, District Sangrur.

                     ….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

For the complainant  : Shri Rajinder Sharma, Adv.              

For the Ops             : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv. And

                                  Udit Goyal, Advocate.

ORDER

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

1.             Complainant has approached this Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by booking the gold quantity of 60.00gms on 22.01.2013  and paid Rs. 1,09,031/- to the Ops. The complainant can get maturity amount after five years.    The maturity date of the said scheme was 22.01.2018. After due date of said scheme, the complainant submitted the policy with OP no.2 to get the maturity amount . The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the maturity amount   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 release the maturity amount of the FDR i.e. Rs.1,55,366 alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization, and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and an amount of Rs.22,000/- 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 22.01.2013 the complainant had booked 60 gold  and  advanced the booked amount of Rs. 1,09,031/- . So as per the conditions of scheme she paid 62.5% of Rs.1,74,450/- i.e. Rs.109031/- only and the claim of complainant for entire amount 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 60 gms  and booked value of the gold was Rs.1,74,450/-. The total net payable amount to the OPs was Rs.109031/-  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.109031/- to the OPs. After due date of said scheme, the complainant submitted the policy with OP no.2 to get the maturity amount. The complainant requested the OPs so many times to release the  maturity amount  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 22.01.2013 the complainant had booked 60 grams gold at that time the value of the same was Rs.1,74,450/-. So as per the conditions of scheme she paid 62.5% of Rs.1,74,450/- i.e. Rs.109031/- only and as such she received discount of 37.5% of Rs.1,74,450/- i.e. Rs.65419/- and the claim of complainant for payment of Rs.1,74,450/- is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of scheme and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

7.             Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.109031/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the record it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs.109031/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, Ex.C-2   show that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.109031/- with the opposite parties vide  receipt Ex.C-2.  There is no satisfactory reply from the Ops that why the Ops did not refund to the complainant the so deposited amount of Rs.109031/- alongwith interest to the complainant. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Moreover, as per Ex.C-2,  it is established that the deposit/investment receipt is issued by Sahara Q Gold Mart Limited.

8.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had deposited the disputed amount of Rs.109031/- with the Ops, but the Ops are taking lame excuses for not returning the amount  alongwith interest.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are liable to refund the above said deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest.

9.             As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.109031/- to the complainant alongwith interest t the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as costs and Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                                Announced.

                                September 5, 2022.

 (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                         President