Delhi

North East

CC/419/2022

Mrs. Manisha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2022

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.419/22

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Manisha W/o Mr. Sanjay Gupta R/o 101-102, pocket-26, First Floor, Near DJB Pump, Rohini, Sector-24, Avantika, North West, Delhi-110085	Complainant
	Versus
	Sahara Q, Gold Mart Ltd. 25-28, Plot No.209, Atlanta Building Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                                     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                                                      DATE OF ORDER :

15.11.2022                  21.11.2022                  08.12.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the  Opposite Party offered a scheme namely “Gold Bank Scheme” in which it offers a discount of 37.50% on purchase of particular quantity of gold and it shall be delivered to Complainant after 5 years and Opposite Party also gave assurance of delivering gold of pure 22 to kt. The Complainant had purchased gold from Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had issued a deposit slip acknowledging the payment having particular no. 60514700096, 80 grams dated 31.07.12 amounting to Rs. 1,44,000/- The Complainant stated that she had visited the office of Opposite Party on 24.10.17 to get the benefits of gold scheme and deposited all the requisite documents to the Opposite Party for remitting the maturity benefits. The Complainant submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the Opposite Party had to remit the payment or gold to the customer within 30 days of the receipt of the application form. On 28.08.18 after lapse of the considerable period Complainant wrote to Opposite party demanding the maturity benefits against her booking and the Opposite Party requested her to visit after some time. The Complainant stated that on 20.11.18 the Complainant again visited the Opposite Party for demanding the maturity benefits but all in vain and Opposite Party again asked the Complainant to visit again after some time. The Complainant stated that on 28.01.22 the Complainant sent a legal notice demanding maturity benefits but the Opposite Party had refused to take the legal notice. After the date of the maturity of the scheme the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party on various occasions but all in vain. Even after the completion of the date of maturity of the scheme the Opposite Party did not provide the Complainant the gold or the other maturity benefits.
2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the point of Admission and we have also perused the file. Complainant had purchased gold from the Opposite Party under their scheme of “Gold Bank Scheme” on 31.07.12 which was matured on 31.07.17 i.e. after completion of tenure of the plan as per scheme. Complainant approached the Opposite Party on 24.10.17 for maturity benefits of the gold scheme and deposited requisite documents.
3. As per section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which read as under:-

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

4. In this case, Complainant filed this complaint after 5 years from the date on which the cause of action arisen and Complainant failed to give any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint with 2 years as prescribed in the Section 69 (1) & (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
5. Hence, we did not see any ground to admit the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 08.12.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President