DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                      SANGRUR.

                                                          Complaint No:   337

                                                          Instituted on   :   16.07.2019

                                                          Decided on     :   12.04.2021

Chirag Mittal son of Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Mittal resident of New Grain Market, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through its Managing Director 226024.

2.     Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Office Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh-148026, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its  Branch Manager.

3.     Raj Kumar Garg, Authorized Agent of Sahara India Pariwar, Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh-148026, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.           

        ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri S.S.Ratol Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :            Shri Sanjeev Goyal,Adv.         

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Chirag Mittal, complainant (referred to as CC in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.21900/-  under Q Shop Plan H  on  11.05.2012. The date of maturity of the said policy/ scheme was 11.05.2018 and maturity value of the said policy/scheme is Rs.51465/-. After due date of said policy/scheme the complainant submitted all the relevant documents with OP no.2 for releasing the maturity 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 the policy i.e. Rs.51465/- along with 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 complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the Q shop scheme relates to purchase of products and that the complaint is devoid of any merit.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.21900/- with the OPs, but it is denied that the OPs promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.51465/-after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.51465/- from the Ops.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

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

4.             We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the parties as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.21900/- on 11.05.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Plan H scheme, which had tenure/term of 6 years as agreed by OPs.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the Ops ever promised to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.51465/- as mentioned in the complaint nor the complainant has produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support this contention. It is proved by the complainant vide Ex.C-2 that she had deposited Rs.21900/- on 11.05.2012 with the OPs.  It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.21900/- with the OPs with a term of six years. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the Ops are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.21900/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.

6.             So, in view of our above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.21900/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization in full. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Announced.

                                April  12, 2021

                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)                (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                         Member                                 President

                BBS/-