Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    28 November, 2022.

Date of Judgement    :    31 August, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Md. Ibrahim Ansari, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, herein after called the said Act, against (1) the Branch Manager, Shibpur Branch, (2) the Area Manager and (3) the Chairman, all of M/s. Sahara Q Shop East, hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OPs.

            The facts as stated in the complaint petition supported by documents attached with it are that the Complainant deposited on 06/01/2014 & 31/03/2014 his hard earned money of Rs.51,000/- & Rs.51,000/-, in total Rs.1,02,000/-, in a scheme of  the OPs wherein it was assured to the complainant that on maturity the OP company would refund the maturity amount.  After receiving this amount the OP issued two certificates bearing nos. 893002207353 on 06/01/2014 & 893002207610 on 31/03/2014. Complainant stated in his complaint that according to these certificates this amount was stated as Global Advance for buying wide range of goods chosen from the available broachers of the OPs within plan period of 6 years. Complainant alleged that the OPs were unable to deliver any goods or products as per their specifications.  It is also alleged by the complainant that after the expiry of 6 years he deposited all the original papers and documents to the OP-1.  But he could not get back the maturity amount as the OPs failed to refund it and he then filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OP company (a) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to return Rs.1,02,000/- paid by him as per the their rules with interest from date of payment till realisation,  (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission deem fit and proper as per law.

            Complainant filed a copies of: (i) two Receipts bearing nos. 573003209651 (Certificate no. 893002207353) issued by the OP company on 06/01/2014 & 573002079885 (Certificate no. 893002207610) issued on 31/03/2014, (ii) two letters issued by him to OP-1 on 17/08/2021 & 14/03/2022, and (iii) one letter issued by him to all the OPs on 15/07/2022 as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notices were served upon all the OPs after admission to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  None of the OPs appeared nor had they filled their written version, so the case proceeded ex parte.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed his Brief Notes on Argument.  We have now come to the position to deliver the Final Order in this case.  We have to decide whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which he is entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The material facts of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed document are that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.51,000/- on 06/01/2014 and Rs.51,000/- on 31/03/2014 at the OP company’s authorised Centre at Liluah.  The OP company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Q Shop East, having its office at Sahara India Sadan, 2A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071, issued two Receipts bearing no. 573003209651 (having Certificate No. 893002207353) on 06/01/2014 with Custoner ID: 815854000127 and 573002079885 (having Certificate No. 893002207610) on 31/03/2014 with Customer ID: 851914000088.  It is stated in these receipts that a sum of ‘Global Advance’ of Rs.51,000/- is received from Md. Ibrahim Ansari ‘for the period and as per the Terms & Conditions of Q shop purchase Advance Plan’.  In these receipts it is also stated that ‘total accumulated LBP Benefit shall be 2.13/2.26/3.84/3.97 times of Global Advance subject to certain/specific consumption patterns of their broad categories of goods which include a wide range of items of food products, processed foods & beverages, personal care, etc.’ It is also stated in this receipt that the customer may opt for world class recreation, leisure activity, healthcare & wellness, etc.  This advance, as is stated there, will be adjusted against the purchases as mentioned in the enrolment form.  This is also stated in this receipt that the customers shall get redemption of LBPs at the end of specific period. From this citation of the receipt we find that, as there is no other documents provided by the complainant, the main intention of this Plan is to sell various products to the payee/customer.  The amount the complainant deposited as stated in these receipts as a Global Advance would be adjusted against the purchase of the customer. A redemption option is also there which depends on the LBPs. But there is no clarification of the term LBP Benefit.  The statement of the complaint petition says that the OPs were unable to deliver goods/products as per their specification for which he opted for redemption of his deposits or simply the maturity amount.  Nothing is there about the terms & conditions of the ‘Q Shop Purchase Advance Plan’. So, we are in the dark about the tenure of the plan and about the refund policy.  However, there is a redemption option which, I think, the complainant was intended to avail of.

            As the OPs did not contest the case so we have no alternative but to rely on the statement of the complainant. There is no contrary material to counter or rebut claim of the complainant. As the OPs could not provide any goods/products so the complainant must except the return of higher amount, redemption value or maturity amount, after the time period fixed for this scheme/plan.  Here, according the complaint, the complainant’s efforts to get back the redemption amount, which he called the maturity amount from the OP company, yielded no results.

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated above this can be said that the complainant has deposited his money in a specific Plan/Scheme of the OP company intending to get return of his money after a specific time which became unsuccessful. The OP company failed to return the money according to the Plan to the complainant. No evidence has been filed by the OP to establish that the complainant failed to submit KYC and other necessary documents for disbursement of the maturity amount whereas the complainant himself stated that he deposited all the papers and documents hoping to get return of his deposited money but he failed to receive the redemption/maturity amount. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OP which they must compensate. The OP is also liable to return the amount of money in accordance with the plan. It is stated in the receipts that total accumulated LBP Benefits shall be 2.13/2.26/3.84/3.97 times of the Global Advance. But the specific time period has not been stated in these receipts. On the back page of these receipts a stamp has been embossed stating the redemption of LBP after 6 years and it staes that Rs.5,000/- will be Rs.11,772/-.  If that be so, the complainant could expect to get back the proportional redemption amount of Rs.1,02,000 after 6 years.  Bur complainant claimed simple interest on his deposited amount from the date of deposits along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. But claim of compensation along with interest is not justified. I think payment of the deposited amount together with a simple interest @ 9% on the deposited amount from the date of last deposit, i. e. from 31/03/2014, will serve the purpose in this case. The OPs are also liable to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as the complainant was compelled to knock at the door of this Commission to get his grievance be redressed.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/316/2022 allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs.1,02,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 31/03/2014 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The OP is also directed to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost within the abovementioned time period failing which the entire sum shall carry 9% simple interest per annum till full and final realisation. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.