Date of Registration of C. C. : 13.06.2018.
Date of Disposal of C. C. : 20.04.2022.
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION – I
KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM
Present: Sri Chintalapudi Kishore Kumar, M. A., B. L., Honourable President.
Sri Nandipati Padma Reddy, M. A., B. L., Member.
Smt. Sree Lakshmi Rayala, M. B. A., Women Member.
Wednesday, the 20th day of April, 2022
C.C. No. 82 of 2018
Between:
Vura Lakshmi Purnachandra Rao,
S/o. Panduranga Rao,
Hindu, aged about 47 years,
Business, resident at C/o. Kollipara China Venkata Panduranga Rao,
Door No.1-258-10, Main Road,
Pedana, Pedana Mandal,
Krishna District, A.P.,
Cell Ph. No.74166 76466. … Complainant.
AND
1. Authorized Signatory,
Sahara Credit Co-operative Society Limited,
Sahara India Bhawan, 1,
Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226 024,
Utter Pradesh State.
2. The Branch Manager,
Sahara India, Door No.25/130/131,
1st Floor, Near Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple,
Jagannadhapuram,
Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
… Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before this Commission on 06.04.2022 for hearing, in the presence of the complainant who appeared in-person; Sri Md. Masthan, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Commission delivers the following:
O R D E R
Delivered by Sri Ch. Kishore Kumar, Hon’ble President:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally (a) to pay the amount of Rs.17,850/- together with interest as mentioned on the Receipt from the date of the Receipt i.e., 5.9.2012 till the realization to complainant; (b) to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical sufferance; (c) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
2. The material averments mentioned in the complaint in brief are as follows:
3. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.17,850/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty only) on 5.9.2012 with the opposite parties under “Q Shop Plan-H” and the opposite parties issued Receipt bearing No.71026251952, Certificate No.562008540588 and customer ID bearing No.812382003263 with the signature of the Authorized Signatory in his favour. It was mentioned on the said Receipt that “under Q Shop Plan-H” for the period and as per the terms and conditions of the plan. Total accumulated LBP benefit will be 2.13 / 2.26 / 2.35 / 3.84 / 3.97 / 4.06 times of global advance and it is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of Q Shop Plan-H Goods/Hospitality products. LBP earning and benefit on global advance amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) is explained through an example/instance on back side of the said Receipt. The complainant further submit that he reliably learnt that the opposite parties company is struggling and is in financial crisis and failing to pay the amounts due to the deposit holders. Thereafter the complainant personally approached the 2nd opposite party and requested to pay the amount due to him under the above said Receipts. However the opposite parties are postponing the matter without repaying the amount due to him, committed deficiency in service on their part and caused mental agony and physical sufferance a lot to him. Hence this complaint.
4. The main and material contents in the written version of the opposite parties are as follows:
5. All material allegations in the complaint are not true and correct. These Opposite Parties submit that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and the relationship between the complainant and these opposite parties is the debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is financial transaction and any grievance on it, it should be redressed in civil court only. It is submitted that the document No.1 is issued for the deposit made under Sahara Q Shop Plan-H by Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited which is situated at Lucknow. But the said company is not shown as opposite party. The complaint made the Sahara Credit cooperative Society and Sahara India, Machilipatnam Branch as opposite parties which not concerned to the deposit made by the complainant. Hence opposite party No.2 submits that the complaint is not maintainable as non joinder of necessary party as well as mis-joinder an unnecessary party. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Due to discrepancy with SEBI and as the matter is pending in the Honourable Supreme Court the delay in payment is happened. Further the complainant is not entitled for damages towards mental agony and inconvenience and costs of this complaint as the complainant did not mention anything in complaint and also did not file any documentary proof in support of his contention. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The complainant filed his proof affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 Sahara Q Shop Plan-H bearing Certificate No.562008540588, dated 5.9.2012 for Rs.17,850/- issued by Opposite Party No.1 and Ex.A2 receipt bearing No.071026251952 for Rs.17,850/-.
7. On behalf of opposite parties no witness is examined and no document is marked.
8. We have heard the arguments advanced and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
9. On consideration of the complaint, written version, evidence of complainant, and arguments, the points that arose for consideration are:
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
(2) Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Consumer Commission?
(3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(4) Whether the complaint is entitled to have the reliefs as sought for?
(5) To what relief?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
10. To prove its case, the complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the contents in the complaint and marked Ex.A1 certificate and ExA2 receipt. Ex.A1 certificate shows that t the complainant got enrolled as a Member in the 1s’ opposite's office with customer ID bearing No.812302003263 under Q Shop Plan-H ("PLAN-H") scheme on 05.09.2012 and has paid a sum of Global Advance Rs.17,850/- vide Ex.A2 receipt for the period and as per the terms and conditions of the plan and total accumulated LBP Benefit will be 2.13/ 2026/ 2.35/ 3.84/ 3.97/4.06 times of Global Advance and it is based on certain / specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products. Further the complainant’s proof affidavit shows that soon after maturity of the deposit he approached the opposite party No.1 and requested for amount. But the 1st respondent did not pay the maturity amount.
11. The counsel for opposite parties vehemently argued that Complainant is not a consumer and the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties is financial transaction and if any grievance on it should be redressed in civil court only and that the complainant ought to have filed complaint before arbitrator only and therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. According to Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act ‘Consumer’ means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of differed payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of differed payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
13. Sec. 2 (1) (e) ‘Consumer dispute’ means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contend in the complaint.
14. Similarly, Sec.2(1) (o) ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential uses and includes but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both housing construction, entertainment amusement or purveying of news and other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal services.
15. In the present case the opposite parties collecting deposits from the complainant and paying interest renders ‘service’ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (0) of the Act. In view of the above quoted provision of Law, the complainant who deposited money under Ex.A1 certificate opposite party No.1, in pursuance of terms and conditions mentioned on the back of Ex.A1, is a consumer. Further in Kasi Annapurna vs. Smt. Bharathi 1996 (1) C.P.J 43 (N.C.) it was held that Non –payment of fixed deposit amount on maturity amounts to deficiency in service.
16. As the opposite parties disputed the allegations mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant it comes under definition of consumer dispute.
17. The next contention of the opposite parties that the relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant is debtor and creditor and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is financial transaction and any grievance on it should be redressed in Civil Court only and the complainant ought to have filed complaint before arbitrator only and therefore the complaint is not maintainable in this Consumer Commission.
18. Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other Law for the time being in force.
19. The words “in addition to” in Sec. 3 makes it clear that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to the existing Laws in force. The Act provides additional remedies to the consumer.
20. The words “not in derogation of” in Sec. 3 makes it clear that the provisions of CPA do not in any way abrogate even particularly the provisions of other Laws in force and other Laws are to be regarded as complimentary to each other.
21. As per above Sec.3, we do not find any weight in the submission of the counsel for the opposite parties because the remedy before the Consumer Forum is in addition to and not in derogation to any other provision of any other law for the time being in force as provided under Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such this Forum has got the Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
22. Here our View is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in ‘Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through L.Rs and others 2004 (1) CLT 456 where in it was held ‘’from the statement of objects and reasons and the scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that the main object of the Act is to provide for whether protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve the purpose of the Act, various quasi judicial forums are set up at District, State, National level with vide range of powers vested in them. These quasi judicial forum observing the principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate, compensation to the consumers and to impose penalties for non-compliance of their orders.
23. In Lakshmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (II) CPJ 1 SC it was held that they (District Forum, State Commission and National Commission) are quasi judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. They are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system.
24. Further the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Viswabharathi House Building Co-operative Society and other AIR 2003 SC 1043 = 2003 (2) SCC 412 held that “the Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of Civil Court and other statutory authorities.
25. Further after service of notices the opposite parties engaged an advocate and filed common written version. In said written version second opposite party submitted that the 1st opposite party is nothing to do with Ex.A1 certificate issued in the name of complainant and further it shows that that certificate was issued by SAHARA Q SHOP UNIQUE PRODUCE RANGE LIMITED but not SAHAR Cooperative Credit Society Ltd and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed as non joinder of necessary party. In vakalathnama Chinni Tulasi Ram sector manager/123800135 signed vakalath for opposite parties No.1 and 2. Further opposite parties filed common written version but not separately. The Regional manager signed common written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and also signed under declaration in written version as a Regional manager on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. It is not contention of the 2nd opposite party he is nothing to do with Ex A1. If really Sahara credit Co-operative Society Limited is nothing do with the Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited who issued Ex.A1 certificate why the regional manager signed vakalath and written version for both opposite parties 1 and 2. It shows the opposite party No.1 collecting money from the public as non banking financial institution under various schemes as authorized signatory. It is not contention of opposite no.2, he did not collect the deposited amount or advance amount from the complainant and it is not the contention of the 2nd opposite party Ex.A1 is not genuine. Further opposite parties did not choose to adduce evidence by way of filing affidavit to prove its contention. So it cannot be said that the 1st opposite party is not concerned with the Ex.A1 certificate.
26. In view of the above quoted provision of law and decisions, we have no doubt in our mind that the complainant is a consumer and as the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties arose, this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complaint is maintainable. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant only.
Pont No.3:
27. In terms and conditions mentioned on back of Ex.A1 certificate LBP earning and benefit on global advance amount on Rs.20,000/- is explained below through an example/instance: if an esteemed customer as joined “Plan H”, by giving global advance of Rs.20000/- and she consumes / purchases the Sahara Q shop Hospitality products under Plan H. she will earn LBP (as referred in product catalogue / brochure) and based on certain consumption pattern of Sahara Q shop Hospitality products under plan-H, his cumulative benefit of earned LBP in 72 months shall be Rs.22654/-. Thus the total benefit under plan H on consumption/purchase of Sahara Q shop hospitality product would amount to Rs.42,654/- (Rs.22654/- + 20,000/-) i.e., 2.13 times of Global advance amount.
28. In pursuance of the terms and conditions mentioned on back of Ex.A1, the complainant has joined in Q Shop Plan-H ("Plan H") by paying global advance of Rs.17850/- under Ex.A1. As per the said terms and conditions the complainant get benefit of earned LBP in 72 months shall be 2.13 times on global advance amount. The opposite parties did not dispute the genuineness of Ex.A1 & A2. Further the opposite parties did not dispute the global advance amount of Rs.17,850/- paid by the complainant vide Ex.A2 receipt for Ex.A1 certificate. We do not find any reasons to disbelieve Exs.A1 & A2. Further Exs.A1 & A2 are supported by the case of the complainant. As the opposite parties after collecting global advance amount and utilizing said Global advance for its business it is bounden duty of the opposite parties to pay benefit accrued on advance amount plus actual amount as explained in illustration under Ex.A1 to complainant. But opposite parties failed to pay the said amount under Ex.A1 and violated the terms and conditions mentioned under Ex.A1. It is crystal clear that it is sheer negligence on the part of the opposite parties in non-payment of matured amount under Ex.A1 which comes under deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. As per the above said terms and conditions the complainant get Rs.19,376/- + 17850/- = Rs.37,226/- only. Therefore the complainant is entitled to Rs.37,226/- only.
29. The non payment of deposited amount collected under Ex.A1 with accrued benefit to complainant is nothing but deficiency in service on part of opposite parties and by non payment of amount due under Ex.A1 by opposite parties to complainant causing mental agony.
30. Further the opposite parties contended that due to discrepancy with SEBI and as the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the delay in payment is happened. . It is not the contention of the opposite parties that SEBI or the Hon’ble Supreme Court restrained them from repaying the deposited amount to the depositors. And further the opposite parties did not file any piece of paper in support of their contention. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by complainant clearly established that there is a deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.4:
31. In view of the findings in points 1 to 3 the complaint is entitled amount Rs.37,226/- only and compensation for causing mental agony and costs of the litigation. This point is answered accordingly in favour of complainant.
Point No.5:
32. In the result complaint is allowed in favour of complainant directing opposite parties jointly and severally as below.
(i) to pay Rs.37,226/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Six only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e., from 02.06.2018 till the date of realization to the complainant;
(ii) The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental agony;
(iii) To grant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost of the litigation expenses; and
(iv) The opposite parties shall comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of this order.
Typed by the Junior Stenographer to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Commission, on this the 20th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
District Commission-I, District Commission-I, District Commission-I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam. Krishna at Machilipatnam Krishna at Machilipatnam
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties:
PW1: Vura Lakshmi Purnachandra Rao. -Nil-
(By Chief Affidavit)
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 | Receipt bearing No.71026251952, certificate No.562008540588 and customer ID: 812382003263, dated 05.09.2012. | Original |
Ex.A2 | Receipt bearing No.71026251952, dated 5.9.2012 for sum of Rs.17,850/-. | Original |
On behalf of the opposite parties: -Nil-
Sd/-
President
District Commission-I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam.
// T.C.B.O. //
Sd/-
Sheristadar,
District Commission – I,
Krishna at Machilipatnam.
