Date of filing: 05.07.2018 Date of disposal: 27.08.2018
Complainant: Chandrani Laha, D/o. Sukamal Laha, resident of Memari, Old Monteswar Town, PO. & PS: Memari, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 146.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, represented by its Chairman, having its office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226 024.
2. Sahara India, Memari Service Centre, represented by its Branch Manager, having its office at Chakdighi More, G. T. Road, PO & PS: Memari, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 146 (WB).
3. Branch Manager, Memari Service Centre, Sahara India, having its office at Chakdighi More, G. T. Road, PO & PS: Memari, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 146 (WB).
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sanyuk Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: None (ex parte)
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Saurabh Kumar Mitra.
J U D G E M E N T
The present claim application has filed by the complainant Chandrani Laha against Ops to pay an amount of Rs. 1,22,700=00 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with a sum of Rs. 50,000=00 for mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay Rs. 10,000=00 towards cost of the case.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant has invested her money in the OP-1 company through the OP-2 service centre of OP-1 Company and OP-3, the Branch Manager of the OP-2 which she described in ‘A’ schedule in her complaint.
The complainant has compelled to file the present claim application as after the death of her only brother, the family of the complainant faced economic crisis and the business of her father have been fully closed. Thus the total responsibility lies upon her. Therefore on 03.06.2015 the complainant made application to the Branch Manager to OP-2 centre for withdrawal of her deposited money. Again on 04.03.3016 the complainant again requested the Ops by giving another letter to repay her invested amount (A schedule) but till date the Ops have not paid a single farthing.
The complainant further stated that these Ops have already making part or full payment in respect of similar kind of investment of other investors as well as they also paid to her mother also and the last payment made on 09.07.2015 through bank account.
The cause of action of this case arose on 03.06.2015 i.e., the withdrawal of ‘A’ schedule investment of the complainant and on 09.07.2015 the Ops made payment to the complainant’s mother and finally on 04.03.2016 i.e. the last representation of complainant towards Ops.
After filing the present claim application, the complainant sent proper notice to the Ops and all the Ops have received the summon but only OP-2&3 have appeared and contested the case by filing their written version. None appears on behalf of the OP-1. Hence, OP-1 is declared as ex parte.
Both the Ops have contested the present case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act by filing their written version and denied the allegation as alleged by the complainant. According to them the complainant has no bonafide cause to file the instant complaint case and also denied all the allegations by saying that all are false, frivolous, baseless and liable to be rejected with exemplary costs and also the complainant is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and the present complaint should be dismissed with cost.
The specific case of the Ops are that they have further stated that the present petitioners cannot be considered as consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of C. P. Act, 1986 and as such on this part they have no deficiency or negligence under Section 2 (1) (g) of C. P. Act, 1986.
Moreover according to Ops, the complainant has invested the amount for making profit so this complaint is not maintainable before this ld. Court. They have also stated that on the basis of proposal from the part of the complainant for issuance of ‘Q shop plan H policy’ Ops issued 7 certificates in favour of the complainant subject to terms and conditions.
Accordingly as per scheme the complainant is not entitled to withdraw any amount before redemption and the complainant also knowing fully well this matter. Besides, this according to Ops the original certificates of the plan along with terms and condition are in the custody of the complainant.
Further both the Ops also stated that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops whereas the complainant with a motive not filed the original terms and conditions which was supplied at the time of issuance of certificates. Accordingly the present complaint should be dismissed with cost by treating the same as vexatious complaint.
On considering the claim application along with written version filed by the OP-2&3, the following issues settled by the present Forum.
Points for consideration :-
- Whether this claim application at all maintainable in its present form?
- Whether complainant entitled to get any award as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the records very carefully. Perused the documents which filed by the complainant by way of ‘firisti’ i.e. Sahara Q Shop Unique products Range Ltd., Service Centre Memari, Burdwan Sector, certificates Xerox copies Annexure ‘A’ /1 to Annexure ‘A’ /7 and Sahara Q Shop Unique products Range Ltd., Notice Xerox and Bank statements Xerox copies Annexure ‘B’ /1 to annexure ‘B’ /3.
Issue No. 1:-
The complainant has filed the present claim application against the Ops on the allegation that she purchased 7 certificates which she mentioned in ‘A’ schedule from the Ops for amounting Rs. 1,22,700=00 on different dates and to prove the same the complainant is able to produce the documents i.e. the Xerox copy of 7 certificates. As the complainant paid money to the Ops to purchase the certificates as mentioned, it could be easily said that the complainant has became the consumer and the Ops on receiving such amount from the complainant have became the service provider of the complainant. So from the materials on records it is clear that the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the C. P. Act.
Besides that it also appears that the complainant used to resides at Memari, Old Monteswar Town, PO. & PS: Memari, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 714 146 (WB) and the office of both the Ops is at Chakdighi More, G. T. Road, PO. & PS: Memari, dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 146 (WB) i.e. also within the territorial jurisdiction of this present Forum. So under such circumstances it is clear that complainant is able to prove that the present application is maintainable according to law.
Accordingly this issue disposed of.
Issue No. 2:-
Now the question arises whether the complainant is at all entitled to get any award as prayed for and to consider this issue it appears that the complainant purchased 7 certificates total value of which is Rs. 1, 2,700=00 in ‘Q Shop Plan-H’ [Plan –H] and to prove the same the complainant is able to produce the documents i.e. Xerox copy of 7 certificates. The allegation of the complainant is that due to death of her only brother her family suffers a lot and that is why she by giving two letters dated on 03.06.2015 and 04.03.2016 requested the Ops to refund the amount which actually paid by her to Ops for buying 7 certificates.
The Ops on the other hand have alleged that all the certificates which produced by the complainant all are per-mature. So according to terms and condition the complainant is not entitled to withdraw the amount. It is also said by the Ops that the complainant is well known about the terms and conditions of the policy and motive behind it she has not filed the original terms and condition, so supplied to her at the time of issuance of certificates.
It is fact that the complainant has filed only 7 certificates but not filed nay terms and condition which according to Ops given her at the time of issuance of certificates for consideration that the complainant is not entitled to withdraw the amount before maturity period. So in this condition onus lies upon Ops to produce the terms and condition of the said certificates to prove their case.
Accordingly when we gone through the record we noticed that Ops also not produced any terms and condition of the policy from where it will be clear that the policy holder cannot be able to withdraw his/her money before maturity. It is fact that Ops have liability to refund the deposited amount with agreed inter3est to the complainant after maturity no doubt but in the certificates it has not been mentioned that the complainant has no right to claim for refund of such amount paid by her to purchase such certificates before the date of maturity.
Accordingly it is clear that the original terms and condition still lies with Ops. They intentionally suppress the terms and condition only to harass the complainant so that the complainant will not be able to withdraw the purchased money during her economical crisis at her family. Under such circumstances the complainant is able to prove her claim application and able to prove that she is entitled to get purchased amount at this stage as per her requirement.
Accordingly this issue disposed of.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 113/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP-1 and allowed on contest against the OP-2&3 with a direction to all the Ops to pay Rs. 1, 22,700=00 either jointly or severally to the complainant along with 4% interest per annum on the invested amount from 05.07.2016 (date of filing of this complaint) within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the invested amount will carry penal interest @8% per annum till its realization and all the Ops are further directed to pay either jointly or severally to the complainant Rs. 20,000=00 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
