Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/255/2021

Kamlesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ujval Mittal

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/255/2021
Date of Institution	:	20/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	10/2/2023

 

Kamlesh Kumar aged 41 years son of Sh. Rajendra Mehta R/o H. No. 2022, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

• M/s Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited through its Managing Director Sahara  India Bhawan 1, Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow  226024.
• Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited through its Branch Manager, Sahara Parivar SCO No.1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

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

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ujval Mittal, counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

• The present consumer complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under:-

• It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on the allurement of the agent of OPs, complainant had deposited the following amount with the OPs:-

Sr. No.	Receipt NO.	Amount deposited	Date of deposit
1.	71019988331	Rs.14200/	24.5.2012
2.	71019984288	Rs.28500/-	29.5.2012
3.	71045660207	Rs.8250/-	20.10.2012
4.	71045660208	Rs.8250/-	16.10.2012

 

The aforesaid amounts were initially deposited for 6 years and the OPs assured the complainant that they shall open a shop through which goods of various well-known brands and ranges would be made available for purchase by the depositors at very attractive price with lot of other benefits. It was also assured that it would be the discretion of the depositor either to purchase offered goods through Q shop or to get the amount deposited alonwith interest on maturity of tenures. However, even after lapse of 6 years the Ops neither opened any Q shop as assured or refunded the amount deposited by the complainant.  The complainant approached the OPs for refund of the amount deposited  but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and did not release the said amount.  The said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice to the OPs on 22.02.2021, but to no avail. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.

• 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 had agreed to pay any interest over advance amount by alleging that in fact there was no provision of maturity or pre maturity under the Q Shop Scheme under which the complainant had deposited the aforesaid amount.  In fact, complainant had agreed to purchase the complete range of products of the company chosen from the brochure which includes complete range of goods and the complainant was also made aware of the said scheme by supplying booklet containing the details of the consumer goods, product code, sale price and loyalty bonus points on purchase value. Averred, complainant can get back only the amount that he had advanced with the company without interest and the OPs never refused to refund the advance amount, but, it is the complainant who made demand of interest and herself has refused to get the advance amount.  Denied 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.
• In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

• In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
• We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully.
  • 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 amount shall be refunded to the complainant with interest after six years whereas the defence of the OPs is that no such assurance was given by the OPs, rather the complainant had advanced the aforesaid amount for “Q Shop goods and as per terms and conditions, complainant had paid an advance for buying complete range of Sahara Q Shop goods chosen from the brochure of OPs and when it was never agreed upon by the OPs to pay interest on the aforesaid advance amount and that OPs are even ready to refund the same to the complainant without interest, which the complainant has not been accepting, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled for the aforesaid amount with interest, as prayed for, or if the consumer complaint is not maintainable and deserves dismissal, as is the defence of the OPs.
  • 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-1 to C-3 clearly indicates that the complainant had not deposited the aforesaid amount with the OPs in order to get interest on the same, rather the complainant had advanced the aforesaid amount under “Q Shop goods (Exist) 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 interest was ever agreed to be paid on advance amount. Thus, when the complainant himself has agreed while advancing the aforesaid amount to the OPs that he 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 any interest on the advance amount, it is safe to hold that for the period of six years from the date of payment of advance amount by him through receipt (C-1 to C-3), the complainant was not entitled for any interest.
  • It is further the case of the complainant that he has been requesting the OPs to release the aforesaid amount in his 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 they have been refunding the aforesaid amount to the complainant, but, the complainant has not been accepting the same. Hence, in such circumstances, it is to be determined if the OPs were paying the aforesaid amount and the same was not being accepted by the complainant. Moreover, 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 even the complainant has not placed on record any letter or email to show that he requested the OPs to refund the amount after 6 years of the deposit, 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.
  • 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.  
  • 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.
• 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 :-

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. 20.4.2021 till realization of the same.

to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

to pay ₹7,000/-  to the complainant as costs of litigation.

• 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.
• Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.
• Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 10/2/2023			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member