Kishan Chand Aggarwal filed a consumer case on 23 Dec 2020 against Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/370/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Dec 2020.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/370/2019
Kishan Chand Aggarwal - Complainant(s)
Versus
Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
Devinder Kumar
23 Dec 2020
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
========
Consumer Complaint No.
:
CC/370/2019
Date of Institution
:
16/05/2019
Date of Decision
:
23/12/2020
Kishan Chand Aggarwal son of Sh. Laxmi Narayan, R/o H.No.40, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.
…..Complainant
V E R S U S
[1] Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.
[2] Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited, SCO 1110-11, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
[3] Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, through its Managing Director.
…… Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
RATTAN SINGH THAKUR
PRESIDENT
SURESH KUMAR SARDANA
MEMBER
ARGUED BY
:
Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
:
None for Opposite Parties.
PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER
The facts, in brief, are, attracted by high returns on maturity, as projected by the Representative of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with the Opposite Parties for a period 15 months (Receipts Annexure C-1 & C-2). On maturity, instead of releasing the amount, the Representative of the Opposite Parties lured the Complainant, if he re-invests the amount in their other Scheme he would get double of the invested amount. Believing the version of the Representative of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant re-invested the maturity amount of Rs.1,96,500/- in the other Scheme of the Opposite Parties for six years (Receipts Annexure C-3 & C-4). After the completion of six years, Complainant approached Opposite Parties for refund of the invested amount along with benefits as assured by their Representative. The Opposite Parties, initially, kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and eventually, refused to refund the amount on the ground that the Complainant failed to pay the regular amount to the Opposite Parties. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that Q Shop is not a fixed deposit scheme. Under Q Shop Plan-H Scheme, Complainant has to purchase the products of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited Company and as per the terms & conditions of the Scheme there is no provision of payment of pre-maturity or maturity. There is also no interest payable over the advance amount. The Complainant did not make advance to get the interest, rather he had advanced to purchase the products of the company. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant.
Perusal of Annexure C-3 & C-4 reveals that on 26.05.2012 and 30.05.2012 the Complainant paid advance for Q Shop G Plan-H to the tune of Rs.21,500/- and Rs.1,57,350/-, but there is no mention of investment for six years. However, in the written statement, the Opposite Parties have admitted that the Scheme in question relates to purchase of products through which customer (Complainant) can purchase the products of company every month for a period of 6 years as per his requirement through that advance money which he has paid to the Opposite Parties at the time of entering into the Scheme. Also, there is mention that there is no provision of payment of maturity payment. As per Opposite Parties, Clause-2 of Scheme specifically states that no interest is payable over the advance amount.
It is out of our understanding that why the Opposite Parties never made any correspondence with the Complainant if as per the Scheme he had to purchase the products of the company every month for a period of 6 years. This itself is sufficient to prove the inactive approach of the Opposite Parties towards their gullible consumers/ customers. So far as the question of maturity payment is there, there is no mention with regard to the same in Annexure C-3 & C-4.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant argued that per assurance of the Opposite Parties, Complainant is entitled for the refund of the double of the invested amount. In support of this, he placed reliance on Annexure C-4 (page 26). We have meticulously gone through the said document and found that though there is a mention of word “double”, but the same has neither been signed nor stamped by the Opposite Parties. In the absence of which, no credence can be given to this document. Hence, we cannot grant said relief to the Complainant. Undoubtedly, the Opposite Parties have admitted that they possessed Rs.21,500/- vide Receipt No. 071019984671 and Rs.1,57,350/- vide Receipt No.071019985742 paid by the Complainant for a long period of 6 years on which certainly they must have availed the interest. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant did not avail any kind of services of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-honouring their own Scheme, non-explaining the terms & conditions thereof to the Complainant so that he could get benefit of the same for 6 years, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in the present unnecessary litigation, but has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the Complainant. To our mind, the Opposite Parties must have refunded the amount to the Complainant along with interest, compensation and costs of the present proceedings.
For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-
[a] To refund Rs.1,78,850/- (Rs.21,500/- + Rs.1,57,350/-) to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits.
[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;
This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr. No.(a) from the date of respective deposits till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(c) above.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Sd/-
23/12/2020
[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
[Rattan Singh Thakur]
Member
President
“Dutt”
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.