Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/485/2018

Mr. Rashpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sapna Vasudeva

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/485/2018
Date of Institution	:	03/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	03/12/2019

 

Rashpal Singh S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh, House No.120, Dadumajra Colony, Sector 38-C, 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 Housing Investment Corporation Limited, SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Managing Director.

 

[3]     Ghanshyam S. Arya, House No. 2743, Sector 38 West, DMC, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR. S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person, along with Ms. Sapna Vasudeva, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	None for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 in person with Sh. Vinamra Kaushik, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         The facts, in brief, are, attracted by high returns on maturity, as projected by the Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,800/- with the Opposite Parties on 05.09.2012 in the shape of FDR for a period 6 years. As per the Scheme, when on maturity, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to get his money back along with accruing benefits, instead of giving the money back, Opposite Parties dilly-dallied the matter and maliciously refused to return the amount citing financial constrains. Eventually, a legal notice dated 04.09.2018 was got served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that Q Shop is not a fixed deposit scheme and no FDR was ever issued by the Company to the Complainant. The Complainant had simply made advance to purchase the products of the company. The account opened by the Complainant is related with Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited Company. Q Shop Scheme relates to purchase of products through which customer can purchase the products of company in every month for a period of six years as per his requirement through that money which is advanced by the customer at the time of entering into the scheme. There is no provision of payment of maturity amount and also no interest is payable over the advance amount. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.3 filed his separate reply, inter alia, pleading that he has acted in the capacity of an agent only and thus he cannot be held liable for any violation whatsoever done by the Company.  Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
6.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for Parties.
8.         Perusal of Annexure C-2 reveals that on 05.09.2012 the Complainant paid advance for Q Shop G Plan-H to the tune of Rs.1,00,800/-, but there is no mention of investment for six years. However, in the written statement, the Opposite Parties have admitted the Scheme in question relates to purchase of goods of the company, during the tenure of the Scheme, as per his requirement for which he would be entitled to get the benefit of loyalty bonus points as per the terms & conditions of the Scheme. Also, there is mention that there is no provision of payment of maturity payment. As per Opposite Parties, Clause-2 of Scheme specifically states that no interest is payable over the advance amount.
9.         It is out of our understanding that why the Opposite Parties never made any correspondence with the Complainant if as per the Scheme he had to purchase the products of the company every month for a period of 6 years. This itself is sufficient to prove the inactive approach of the Opposite Parties towards their gullible consumers/ customers. So far as the question of maturity payment is there, there is no mention with regard to the same in Annexure C-1.
10.         It has come on record that Opposite Party No.3 was the Agent of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as such, Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 entered into a conspiracy to cheat the investors.  There is no denial of the fact that Opposite Party No.3 is not simply brokers; he joined hands with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to befool the investors. Hence, Opposite Party No.3 cannot escape his liability even though whole of the payment is received by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  So, Opposite Party No.3 is also liable for refund of the amount obtained from the complainant.
11.         Undoubtedly, the Opposite Parties have admitted that they possessed Rs.1,00,800/- paid by the Complainant for a long period of 6 years on which certainly they must have availed the interest. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant did not avail any kind of services of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-honouring their own Scheme, non-explaining the terms & conditions thereof to the Complainant so that he could get benefit of the same for 6 years, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in the present unnecessary litigation, but has certainly caused unprecedented harassment to the Complainant.  To our mind, the Opposite Parties must have refunded the amount to the Complainant along with interest, compensation and costs of the present proceedings.    
12.         For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund Rs.1,00,800/- to the Complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of receipt, till it is paid;

[b]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.         The  above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of receipt, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/12/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”