Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/216/2022

Priya Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Paras Sharma

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/216/2022
Date of Institution	:	21/02/2022
Date of Decision	:	5.4.2023

 

Priya Jha W/o Sh. Amod Jha R/o #1434A, Sector 41/B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.  Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara  India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow  226024 through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara India Pariwar Asharam Rd, Araria, Bihar 854311 through its Branch Manager.
3. The Branch Manager Sahra India Pariwar, 541/1, Kesho Ram Complex, Gali No.5, Sector 45-C, Burail, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ankit Kumar, vice counsel for Sh. Paras Sharma, counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ms. Priya Jha complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OPs floated scheme in the name of & Style of Sahara Q-Shop Plan-H fixed Deposit Certificate vide which they were offering customers to buy complete range of Sahara Q-shop  goods of various brands and on the allurement of the various advertisement/propaganda and the acts of OPs, the complainant had invested the following amount with the OPs in Q-shop Unique Products Range Scheme Deposit Certificates:-

Sr. No.	Receipt NO.	Amount deposited	Date of deposit
1.	071014620213	Rs.25000/	10.09.2012
2.	071014620214	Rs.25000/	10.09.2012
3.	071014620215	Rs.25000/	10.09.2012

 

At the time of booking, it was assured that the scheme is very beneficial and would reap good returns at the end of the terms period of 6 years and the complainant was promised that the amount will be twiced at the time of maturity.  As per terms and conditions of the scheme the advance Q shop deposit shall be redeemed lump sum after the 6 years either by cheque or demand. The customer shall have the choice to receive payment from either of the means.  The complainant made various representation to the local office of the OPs  but the Ops neither paid the deposit amount nor the interest which was promised by the OPs..  The said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.

2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties as complainant was a member of the Society, hence the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, denied that the OPs allured the complainant to become member of the society rather as per his own will and desire he opted to become a member of society and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission.   It is denied that OPs have caused any loss or harassment to the complainant or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.

2. In order to prove her case, complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of his affidavit and supporting documents whereas evidence of OPs in the form of affidavit has been closed vide order dated 14.2.2023 as they failed to file the same despite ample opportunities given.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that complainant had deposited the aforesaid amounts as tabulated in para 1(a) with the OPs above, and as per the case of the complainant OPs had assured the complainant, at the time of deposit, that the said amounts shall be doubled at the time of maturity after six years whereas the defence of the OPs is that no such assurance and allurement was given by the OPs.
   2. In order to determine the real controversy, the receipt containing the general terms and conditions are required to be scanned carefully. Perusal of the receipt Annexure C-2 (colly) clearly indicates that the complainant had not deposited the aforesaid amounts with the OPs in order to get interest on the same, rather the complainant had advanced the aforesaid amount under “Q Shop goods Plan H”.  Admittedly the aforesaid amounts were advanced by the complainant for six years for buying various range of Sahara Q Shop goods and no documentary evidence adduced on record by the complainant to show that she will get double of the deposited amount on maturity. Thus, when the complainant herself has agreed while advancing the aforesaid amount to the OPs that she will get benefit for buying complete range of Sahara Q Shop goods against the advance amount and had not placed on record any  documentary evidence to show that OPs agreed to pay double of deposited amount on maturity, it is safe to hold that for the period of six years from the date of payment of advance amount by her through receipts AnnexureC-2(colly), the complainant was not entitled for any interest on the same.
   3. It is further the case of the complainant that she has been requesting the OPs to release the aforesaid amounts in her favour after the period of six years, but, the OPs have not been releasing the same and the complainant is entitled for the aforesaid amount with interest after the period of six years whereas the defence of the OPs is that the complainant is not entitled for any amount and compensation.   A perusal of record reveals that, nothing has come on record to show that the  complainant had stopped availing the facility provided under Q shop from the  OPs after 6 years.  However, keeping in view the fact that the complainant vide email Annexure C-4 requested the OPs for refund of the invested amount after 6 years of the deposit and the same was not responded by the OPs, it is safe to hold that the OPs shall be liable to refund the said amount with interest from the date of filing of the present consumer complaint.
   4. The OPs have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint as per Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002 and also on account of bar under the Arbitration Act.  So far as the defence of the OPs that the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred under the 2002 Act is concerned, the same is without merit as the complainant has been claiming the amount whatever was advanced by her with the OPs, which has also not been disputed by the OPs especially when it is not the defence, if any amount out of the advanced amount has been adjusted for the goods if any bought by complainant under the Q Shop Scheme. 
   5. Similarly, the provisions of Arbitration Act do not affect the jurisdiction of this Commission as it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs. Aftaab, 2018 Online SCC 2378 that consumer disputes are non arbitrable.
4. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the complainant has successfully proved the deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the aforesaid amounts as mentioned in para 1(a) in the table to the complainant alongwith interest
   @ 9% per annum from filing of the present consumer complaint i.e. 21.2.2022 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹7,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 5/4/2023			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member