Punjab

Sangrur

CC/246/2019

Harpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.G.S.Shergill

14 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR

 

  

                                                                        Complaint No. 246

Instituted on:   27.05.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     14.12.2020

 

 

Harpreet Kaur wife of Gurpreet Singh, resident of Village Rajpura, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

               

                                                 Versus

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

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

3.     Raj Kumar Garg, Authorised Agent of Sahara India Parivar, Branch Office: Main Bazar, Char Khamba Market, Bhawanigarh-148026, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur. 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                         

FOR OPP. PARTIES              :             Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate  

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member     

ORDER:   

 

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

 

1.             Smt. Harpreet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops and deposited an amount of Rs.65,000/- under Q Shop Plan vide receipt number 071-010558621 on 23.07.2012 for the period of six years and the Ops promised to pay on maturity an amount of Rs.1,52,750/- after a period of six years.  On maturity, the complainant deposited the original policy document with the Ops to get the due amount, but the grievance of the complainant is that the due amount was not paid to the complainant despite best efforts of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.1,52,750/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity and further claimed compensation and 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.65,000/- with the OPs, but it is denied that the OP promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,52,750/- after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,52,750/- from the Ops.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 copy of receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the record, pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties submitted written arguments.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.65,000/- on 23.07.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Unique Products Plan, which had tenure/term of 6 years as agreed by OPs in its reply.  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 OP number 1 ever promised to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,52,750/- 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 deposit Rs.65,000/- on 23.07.2012 with the OPs.   It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.65,000/- with the OPs with a term of six years and did not return the same as alleged with the incremental value of Rs.1,52,750/-. 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.65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7.     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.65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 23.07.2012 till realization in full. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs and file be indexed  and consigned to records in due course.

Pronounced.

 

                        December 14, 2020.

 

                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)

                                  Member                       President