Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 377
Instituted on : 15.09.2020
Decided on : 25.05.2023
Ramesh Kumar S/o Amar Nath R/o H.No.677/8, Kayasthan Mohalla, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapurthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Managing Director.
- Ravinder Saini, Authorised Signatory/Franchisee Guardian, Sahara Shop Unique Products Ltd.. Worker Code-208700056, FC Rohtak, Shop No.13, Ist Floor, Heera-Panna Complex, Opposite Gurudwara Tikana Sahab, Rohtak-124001.
- Ravinder Saini, R/o Shop No.13, Ist Floor, Heera-Panna Complex, Opposite Gurudwara Tikana Sahab, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. B.S.Hooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that at the request of opposite party no. 2 & 3, he deposited an amount of Rs.1,36,450/- dated 13.02.2013 vide receipt no. 71039960831 bearing certificate no.562002309067 with customer ID861583000109 and Rs.32850/- dated 22.02.2013 vide receipt no. 71039960838 bearing certificate no. 562002309072 with customer ID 861583000114 with opposite party no. 1 through Franchisee Guardian(Opposite party no. 2 & 3) for a period of 6 years in Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited under “Q Shop Plan H” goods and or hospitality products as per the terms and conditions of the plan. It is further submitted that after the date of maturity the complainant approached the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 in their office several times to take the maturity amount back as he was in dire need of money but they always linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties make fraud with the complainant as they did not return the matured amount. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.3,20,657/- + Rs.77,198/- total Rs.3,97,855/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of maturity till its realization. They also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as harassment charges and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply and submitted that complainant is claiming refund of which he had advanced Rs.397855/- under Q Shop scheme to purchase the products of Sahara Q Shop Upnique products Range Limited Company. Under the terms and conditions of the scheme, there is no provision for providing interest. There is also no provision of the maturity or pre maturity under the Q shop scheme, the complainant willfully visited the office of opposite parties and after understood the terms and conditions , he made advance to purchase the products of the company. The complainant can get back only the amount that he had advance with the company, no interest is payable. The opposite party never refused to refund the advance amount but it is the complainant who made demand of interest and he himself refused to get the advance amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on 25.11.2022. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties have availed several opportunities for filing evidence but has failed to do so. As such, evidence of opposite parties was closed vide order dated 03.03.2023 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.C1/Ex.C2 dated 22.02.2013, complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.32850/- and as per receipt Ex.C3/Ex.C4 dated 13.02.2013 had deposited an amount of Rs.136450/- with the opposite parties. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he deposited the alleged amount for 6 years and after the date of maturity, he requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount alongwith interest but the alleged amount has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, the opposite parties through their reply have submitted that there is no provision of interest and complainant can get back only the amount advance by him with the company. But to prove their contention, opposite parties have not filed any document and also failed to adduce their evidence, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties no.1 is liable to refund the amount to the complainant. Complainant has also placed on record Investment plan Ex.C5, which is a table of cash back as per which, redemption value after 6 years is Rs.320657/-. But the same is a hand written value, which cannot be believed. Hence in our view complainant is entitled for the amount deposited by him i.e. Rs.169300/-(Rs.32850/- + Rs.136450/-) alongwith 9% p.a. interest.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.32850/- (Rupees thirty two thousand eight hundred and fifty only) and Rs.136450/-(Rupees one lac thirty six thousand four hundred and fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. respectively from the date of their respective deposits to till its realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.05.2023.
..................................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
