Punjab

Sangrur

CC/44/2019

Jai Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

 

  

                                                                    Complaint No. 44

                                                                   Instituted on:   04.02.2019

                                                                   Decided on:     19.12.2019

 

 

Jai Devi w/o Devi Lal, R/O H.No.13, Lion Lane, Maan Colony, Sangrur 148 001.

                                                        …. 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 Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Near Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

3.     Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Pariwar, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Franchise Guardian/Branch Manager.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :      Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate  

 

 

Quorum:   Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

               

     

ORDER:  

 

Shri Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Shri Jai Devi, 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 on the advice of the OPs the complainant availed the services of the OPs and deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- in the shape of FDR in Sahara Q shop Goods Plan H launched by the OPs, under which the OPs promised to pay an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- after a period of six years as such the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.70,000/- under the  above said plan on 10.9.2012 vide receipt number 71020040360 with the maturity date as 10.9.2018.  On maturity, the complainant requested the OPs to pay the due maturity 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.1,64,500/-  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.70,000/- with the OPs, but it is denied that the OPs promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- from the Ops.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence.

4.             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.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by investing an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 10.09.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Unique Products Plan-H-scheme to purchase the products of the company at the franchisee office Sangrur, 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.1,64,500/- 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 that vide receipt Ex.C-2 she had deposited Rs.70,000/- on 10.09.2012 with the OPs.   It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- with the OPs with a term of six years and did not return the same as alleged with the incremental value of Rs.1,64,500/-. 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.70,000/- along with interest @ 8% 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.70,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from 10.09.2012 till realization in full. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 45 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 19, 2019.

 

 

 

                   (Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (Vandana Sidhu)        

                            Member                                       Member