Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1244/2015

Manpareet Singh s/o Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahara Q Shope Unique Products Ranes Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1244 /2015

 

Manpreet Singh s/o Surjeet Singh r/o Sector no. 6 Hanumangarh Jn. Tehsil & Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)

Vs.

 

Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow through Director & ors.

 

Date of Order 11.01.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Pramod Kumar counsel for the appellant

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 16.9.2015 whereby the court has dismissed the original complaint on the ground that it is premature.

 

The facts of the case are that the appellant had deposited money with the respondents and recurring deposit account is also opened. Thereafter there was dispute about the Sahara Group and money has been transferred to respondent no.1 who has also issued bonds in the name of the appellant and it is admitted fact that still money is with the respondent no.1 which is deposited in the name of the appellant.

 

During the course of arguments the counsel for the appellant has submitted that bonds were issued in May 2012 and the locking period was six years which clearly shows that the period has not passed yet and the complaint has been filed premature which has rightly been held by the court below.

 

3

 

The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that they want to withdraw the amount premature but no such application has been filed with the respondent no.1 and no such scheme has been submitted before the court that what are the provisions for premature release of the amount. Hence, no case is built by the appellant for premature release of the amount. It is only a fanciful argument.

 

In view of the above the complaint has been filed prematurely and the court below has rightly held so. There is no merit in the appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm