DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/353/2020

Date of Institution   : 16.11.2020

Date of Decision    : 20.12.2021

Indu Rani aged about 43 years wife of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla resident of Ramji Pardhan Street, Ward No. 13, Mansa, District Mansa, Punjab having Aadhaar Card Number 7601-5470-1505. 

…Complainant Versus

1. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024 through its Managing Director.  

2. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Opposite Polo Ground, Near Sethi Sales Corporation, Lower Mall, Near Modi College, Patiala through its Sector Manager-cum-Branch Manager. 

           …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. R.K. Jain counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 (ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Indu Rani has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act against  Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited and another.  (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite party No. 1 is an investment company and collecting the funds from the general public for the purpose of investment, thus indulge in financial service/matters. The opposite party No. 1 has various plans like recurring deposits, FDRs etc. It is further alleged that in month of August 2012 the authorized agent of the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the opposite party No. 2 mage the lucrative scheme for the investment in their company. Under the allurement, the complainant invested Rs. 20,000/- vide certificate/receipt No. 71010560183 on 27.8.2012 in scheme Q Shop Plan H launched by the opposite parties with the opposite party No. 1 with maturity amount of Rs. 47,087/-. The amount was deposited through Branch Office at Barnala of opposite party No. 1 for 6 years.  It is assured by the opposite parties that the maturity amount will be paid within week from the day of demand by the complainant with the opposite parties after the date of maturity. 

3. It is further alleged that on completion of six years the complainant went to the office of opposite parties at Barnala and surrendered the above said certificate alongwith other requisite documents required for the payment with them and asked about the payment, then the person in office told the complainant that they will forward the case to head office for payment and the original certificate/receipt will be collected at the time of payment. It is further alleged that there was lockdown announced in the country and after lockdown, the complainant visited the office of opposite parties at Barnala and was shocked to learn that the opposite parties have closed the Barnala Office and till today the payment has not been made to the complainant. Due to the act and conduct of opposite parties,  complainant is suffering a lot of mental agony, tension and harassment. Hence, present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To release the maturity amount of the above said certificate i.e. Rs. 47,087/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 26.8.2018 till payment. 

ii) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is misconceived, baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further averred that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite parties. Further, the opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and the complainant is member of the Society. As such, for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant contacted the office of Society to become a member for participating in the scheme for taking/gaining benefit of Society. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions, bylaws and objects of the society has become a member and invested an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the scheme of the company at Barnala office of the Society. It is further submitted that the complainant has concocted a story and has filed the present complaint claiming payment which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement. Moreover, the complainant has no right to claim against the terms of the agreement. It is further submitted that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the answering opposite parties was rendered unable to make the payment of contribution amount and its benefit at one go. As such, the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment, but she willfully refused to receive the same in part. So, due to this reason the above said payment could not have been made. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In support of her case complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt Ex.C-2, copy of terms and conditions Ex.C-3. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 2.11.2021 has suffered statement that he does not want to file any rejoinder and closed evidence on behalf of complainant.

6. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 18.10.2021.

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

8. In order to prove her case the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, in which she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. She has further placed on record copy of receipt/certificate Ex.C-2, which shows that a total amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. 

9. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have failed to produce on record any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties is closed by the order of this Commission dated 18.10.2021.

9. Further, the subscription of scheme is not disputed between the parties and complainant deposited the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite parties is also not disputed. Moreover, from the perusal of the records it has been proved that the complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite parties as per scheme vide receipt Ex.C-2. Further, in Ex.C-2 it shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite parties vide certificate/receipt of the same amount with the opposite parties in the said scheme and in this regard  certificate has been issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Further, in Ex.C-2 the maturity amount of deposit on certificate is not shown. So, we are of the view that the complainant has successful in proving that she has deposited the total amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite parties but not proved the maturity amount, so the opposite parties are bound to pay the deposited amount of Rs. 20,000/- as per their certificate Ex.C-2 alongwith interest. 

10. However, the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection in their written version that opposite party is a Society duly registered under “Multi State Co-operative Society Act, 2002” and for any dispute between Society and Member, consumer complaint is not maintainable. In fact, this dispute is with regard to deposit of amount under the scheme of the opposite parties for a particular period and the refund of the same along with benefits. 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 the Ex.C-2 it is established that the deposit/investment receipt is issued by Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, which is not a multipurpose society limited. The objection taken in the written version of opposite parties regarding multipurpose cooperative society are not adequate. So, it is proved that the Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to entertain such matters.

11.   Moreover, it is also mentioned in the written version that due to economic crisis and financial constraint the opposite parties were unable to make the payment to complainant and even the complainant was asked to receive the payment in part/installment. Meaning thereby the opposite parties are ready to refund the amount of complainant in installments.  

12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs and Rs. 3,000/- 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. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       20th Day of December, 2021 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member