DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                           PATIALA                                                

                                             Consumer Complaint No.437 dt.30/10/2019

                                                                Decided on:  04/08/2021

Bhola Singh son of Saun Singh residence of village Safipur, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur

                                                                             ...Complainant

                                      Versus 

1.    Sahara  Q Shop  Unique  Product  Range  Limited, Sahara  India

       Bhawan, 1, Kaapoorthala  Complex, Aliganj,  Lucknow through its    

       Managing  Director; 226024.

2.    Sahara  India  Pariwar, Branch  Office  Opposite  Polo  Ground,

                 Patiala, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite parties.

                                Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

QUORUM

                                Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                                                            Sh. Y. S. Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. G. S. Shergill Adv. counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dhiraj Puri Adv. counsel for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER

                              JASJIT  SINGH BHINDER,  PRESIDENT

1.                  Complainant has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Sahara  Q Shop  Unique  Product  Range  Limited & Ors. ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) on the ground that complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.20,400/- vide FDR No.071010559884  on dt.11/09/2012. The date of maturity of the said FDR was 12/09/2018 and maturity value of the FDR is Rs.47,940/-. After due date of said FDR the complainant submitted all the relevant documents with OP for releasing the 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 FDRs i.e. Rs.47940/- along with 18% interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

2.                  In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is a member of the society and if any member of the society has any grievance then he should go to the arbitrator for arbitration. On merits, it is stated that the complainant being the member of the society had chosen to invest amount in Sahara Plan in the shape of FDRs at Branch office Patiala of Society. Complainant after understanding the by-laws and objects of the society has become a Member. Before opting the scheme the complainant duly understood the terms  and conditions of the scheme  and then the complainant had submitted signed application forms to share for the furtherance of the objects of society. It is further submitted that the maturity value of accounts was as per the terms and conditions of scheme. It is prayed that complaint is baseless, hence complainant is not entitled to any relief and the same is liable to be dismissed. 

3                    The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits. 

4.                  We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.  

5.                  To prove the case, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA is the affidavit of the complainant wherein he has deposed as per his complaint and Ex.C-1 is the copy of FDR. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant deposited Rs.20,400/- vide FDR which was issued by the OP in favour of the complainant. Further it is contended that the complainant approached the OPs and requested OP number 2 to release the maturity amount of the FDR, but the amount was not paid despite approaching the OPs. On the other hand, the OPs have  tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajiv Kumar Shukla along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of authority letter and Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions.   

6.             It is proved on record that the complainant deposited with the opposite parties a total amount of Rs.20400/- vide copy of FDR Ex.C-1. Opposite parties failed to pay the due amount along with interest.  So it is clear that the OPs have defrauded the complainant despite the fact that amount was received but OPs have not made the payment.  The maturity date and maturity value of the FDR/ certificate is not mentioned on the document Ex.C-1.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20400/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 11/09/2012 till realization.  It is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.      

ANNOUNCED*  

Dated: 04/08/2021               

                                       (Y. S. Matta)               (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                                             Member                                           President