DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 435
Instituted on: 15.10.2018
Decided on: 26.04.2019
Kartik aged 25 years Son of Jawahar Lal, resident of H.No. 121, Street no.7A, Ward No.2, Ram Basti, Sangrur- 148 001.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products, Regd. Office: Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226 024 through its Managing Director.
2. Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, District Office Sunami Gate, Phirni Sangrur through its Branch Manager -148001.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES : Shri Udit Goyal,Adv.
Quorum
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member
Mrs. Manisha, Member
ORDER:
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member
1. Kartik aged 25 years Son of Jawahar Lal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the advice of the OPs the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.53,800/- in a Q shop Goods Plan launched by the Ops, under which the Ops promised to pay an amount of Rs.1,26,645/- after a period of six years as such the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.53,800/- under the plan above said vide receipt number 071010559320, 071010559321, 071010559322, 071010559323 on 28.7.2012. On maturity, the complainant deposited the original receipt along with the Ops to get the due amount, but the grievance of the complainant is that the due amount was not paid to the complainant despite best efforts of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.1,26,645/- along with interest @ 9% per annum till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the Q shop scheme relates to purchase of products and that the complaint is devoid of any merit. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.53,800/- with the OP, but it is denied that the OP promised to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,26,645/- after the period of six years. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,26,645/- from the Ops. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.
3. In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the OP number 2 has no concern with the OP number 1 and both the Ops number 1 and 2 are different entities and that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops. On merits, the allegations leveled in the complainant have been denied in toto. Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5 documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have very carefully perused the record, pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties submitted written arguments.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 1 by investing an amount of Rs.53,800/- on 28.07.2012 under Sahara-Q- Shop Unique Products Plan-H-scheme to purchase the products of the company at the franchisee office Sangrur, which had tenure/term of 6 years as agreed by OP number 1 in its reply. We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the OP number 1 ever promised to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,26,645/- as mentioned in the complaint nor the complainant has produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support this contention. Further the complainant could not establish any relation between OP number 1 and 2. It is no doubt true that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.53,800/- with the OP number 1 with term of six years and did not return the same as alleged with the incremental value of Rs.1,26,645/-. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the OP number 1 is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.53,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
7. So, in view of our above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OP number 1 is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.53,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 28.7.2012 till realization in full. Compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- is also allowed. Payment of awarded amounts to the complainant be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to records in due course.
Pronounced.
April 26, 2019.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Presiding Member
(Manisha)
Member
