DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 335

 Instituted on:   16.07.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     21.07.2022

Reena Mittal  wife of Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Mittal resident of New Grain Maerket, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigrh, 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 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,  Adv.              

For the Ops             : Shri Sanjeev Goyal and

                                  Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                                                FINAL ORDER

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing a total sum of Rs.23,000/- vide FDR/certificate   acknowledged by the OPs by issuing    FDR/certificate no. 562002286089 dated 01.03.2013 with total maturity amount of Rs.46000/-. Continuing further, the complainant has also alleged that after expiry of the deadline, he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then she was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release a sum of Rs.46000/- along with interest and also for Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that the scheme of the OPs relate to purchase of products through which customer can purchase the products of company in every month for a  period of 6 years as per his requirement, that the complainant has falsely stated that she had deposited money in the shape of FDR but true fact is that Q shop is not a fixed deposit scheme and that the term of Q shop scheme is 6 years which is commenced from the date of advance payment. On merits, it is stated that the complainant paid an advance of Rs.23000/- for buying complete range of goods but there will be no interest ever on advance  payment  and  the plan period was 6 years. It is stated further that the main reason of delay in making the payment is due to the EMBARGO, which is established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in which the SAHARA cannot sale/purchase of anything without the order of the Hon’ble Court. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In support of case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 copy of certificate/FDR Ex.C-2 and closed evidence.

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have produced sworn affidavit Ex.Ops/1 of Shri Rajesh Kumar shukla, Sr. Executive, Sector Manager Patiala and sample form Ex.Ops/2 and  closed evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

6.             In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record copy of certificate/FDR Ex.C-2 which shows that a total amount of Rs.23000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. 

7.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence except affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Sector Manager.

8.             Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs.23000/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the record it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs.23,000/- with the opposite parties as per scheme. Further, Ex.C-2  shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.23,000/- with the opposite parties.  There is no satisfactory reply from the Ops that why the Ops did not refund to the complainant the so deposited amount of Rs.23,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant. As such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby service of the opposite parties has been hired by the complainant by depositing the above said amount with them. Moreover, as per Ex.C-2 it is established that the deposit/investment certificate is issued by Sahara Q Shop.

9.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had deposited the disputed amount of Rs23000/- with the Ops, but the Ops are taking lame excuses for not returning the amount  alongwith interest.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops are liable to refund the above said deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest.

10.           As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.23000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties  are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs and Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

11.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.   

                                Announced.

                                July 21, 2022                        

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                         President