DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.297 of 3.12.2020

                                      Decided on:         16.7.2021

Sita daughter of Satya Narain aged about 44 years, resident of H.No.16-A, St.No.10, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jhill Road, Patiala 147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, Managing Director through its authorized signatory.
2. Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
3. Sahara India Privar, near Sethi Sales Corporation Opposite, Polo Ground, Patiala-147001, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 35 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for OPs.                                    

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sita (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OPs launched various saving schemes for the investment of amounts. Allured by the schemes, the complainant in the scheme Sahara Q Shop Unique of the OPs deposited Rs.4550/-on 25.5.2012 vide receipt No.071020035174 and on maturity Rs.10647/- was to be paid. Similarly in Sahara Q Gold Mart (Gold Bank) the complainant deposited Rs.17938/- after the deduction of discount in the total value of gold coin of Rs.28000/- on 12.7.2012 in respect of which the OPs issued certificate bearing No.092000736849 and after maturity of five years gold coin of ten grams was redeemable. After  due date of the said deposits the complainant visited the office of the OPs several times for getting the maturity amount  and 10 grams of gold coin but the OPs did not pay any heed which caused lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to release the maturity amount alongwith 9% per annum interest from the date of maturity till realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.4400/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands; that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction as Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd. is duly registered society and the complainant is a member of Society, thus the relation between the parties is of Member and Society and as such complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant himself contacted the office of the OPs to become member of society and after fully understanding the by-laws and objects of the society became the Member of society and deposited the amount in question. He also understood the terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant has no right to claim against the terms of agreement. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs launched various saving schemes and complainant deposited Rs.4550/- and Rs.17938/- with them and after maturity Rs.10,647/- and gold coin of ten grams was to be paid. The ld. counsel further argued that after due date nothing has been paid despite making several requests to the OPs .So the complaint be allowed.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as such the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is receipt issued by Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd vide which 17938/-were deposited , Ex.C2 is the receipt vide which amount of Rs.4550/-was deposited.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.OPA of Rajesh Kumar Shukla, who has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP1 is the authority letter and Ex.OP2 is the Gold Bank purchase form.
12. From the documents, it is clear that the OPs have played a fraud with the complainant as the complainant has deposited the amount with them but after maturity till date no amount has been paid by the OPs. Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which 10 grams gold coin was booked, the value of which was Rs.28700/- but after giving discount of Rs.10762/-, Rs.17938/- were received from the complainant. Similarly vide receipt Ex.C2 Rs.4550/- was deposited. There is no evidence on the file that after due date maturity amount was to be paid. However, as the OPs have played a fraud with the complainant and failed to pay any amount after due date so they are deficient in providing services to the complainant and are liable to refund the actual amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest.
13. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.4550/- and Rs.17938/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the respective dates of deposits  till realization and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and further Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
14. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:16.7.2021

                                           Vinod Kumar Gulati                   Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                           President