Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    09 January, 2023.

Date of Judgement    :    30 November, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Laxmi Shaw, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the 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 after the plan period.

            The facts as stated in the complaint petition supported by documents attached with it are that the Complainant invested on 13/06/2013 an amount of ₹18,000/-  and on 18/06/2013 an amount of ₹32,000/-, totalling ₹50,000/-,  in a scheme of  the OPs which were stated as a Global Advance in the Certificates issued by the OP-1 on those dates. Complainant stated in her complaint that according to these certificates these amounts were meant for buying goods/products from a wide range of goods chosen from the available broachers of the OPs within the 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 she tried to deposit the original certificates and relevant documents to the OP-1.  But the OP-1 did not receive the documents, rather they assured the complainant that after some months they would process her documents for releasing the payable maturity amounts.  But the complainant could not get back the maturity amounts as the OPs failed to refund.  She then sent a letter on 05/10/2021 to all the OPs requesting them to refund the maturity amount.  This time also she could not get the amount and ultimately, finding no other way, she filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OP company (a) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for her physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to return ₹50,000/- paid by her with interest from date of payment till realisation,  (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) litigation cost of Rs.40,000/- and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission deem fit and proper as per law.

            Complainant filed a copies of: (i) Certificate bearing no. 893000328033 and Receipt bearing no. 573000334080 issued by the OP-1 on 13/06/2013 for payment of₹18,000/- , (ii)  Certificate bearing No. 893000328057 and Receipt No. 573000334197 for payment of ₹32,000/-and (iii) one letter issued by her to all the OPs on 05/10/2021 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 did they file any written version for which the case proceeded ex parte.  Then the complainant filed her Evidence on Affidavit. Ultimately argument was heard in full and the complainant filed her 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 she is entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The factual matrix of this case, as emerged from the complaint petition and from the annexed documents, are that the complainant had deposited an amount of ₹18,000/- on 13/06/2013 and on 18/06/2013 an amount of ₹32,000/- at the OP company’s authorised Centre at Shibpur.  The OP-1, on behalf of 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 a Receipt bearing no. 573000334080 and a Certificate bearing no. 893000328033 on 13/06/2013 for the deposit of  ₹18,000/- with Customer ID: 815853002340. On 18/06/2013 the OP-1 issued a Receipt bearing No. 573000334197 and a Certificate bearing No. 893000328057 with Customer ID: 815853002363.  It is stated in each certificate that this amount was received as a Global Advance.  In the Certificate it is written that a sum of ‘Global Advance’ of ₹18,000/- ( or ₹32,000/-) was received from Smt. LAXMI SHAW ‘for the period and as per the Terms & Conditions of Q shop purchase Advance Plan’.  It is also stated in the Certificate 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 the Certificate that the customer may opt for world class recreation, leisure activity, healthcare & wellness, etc.  This advance, as is stated there, would be adjusted against the purchases as mentioned in the enrolment form.  This is also stated in this certificate that the customers shall get redemption of LBPs at the end of specific plan period of 6 years. From this citation we find that, as there is no other documents provided by the complainant, the main intention of this Plan was to sell various products to the payee/customer.  The amount the complainant deposited, as stated in these Certificates as a Global Advance, would be adjusted against the purchase of the customer. A redemption option is also there which depends on the LBPs. There are certain terms and conditions are written on the reverse page of the receipt where the LBP benefits has been explained.  But, the statement of the complaint petition says that the OPs were unable to deliver goods/products as per their specification for which she opted for redemption of her deposits or simply the maturity amounts. 

            Here, according the complaint, the OPs failed to provide their goods/products and the complainant’s repeated efforts to get back the maturity amount from the OP company became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite her repeated requests the OP company did not disburse the maturity amount in her favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OP company and the OPs assured a higher return which implies that the OPs promised to give service to the depositor in the form of monetary benefit, in the form of purchasing goods.  This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 who availed the “Service”, as defined under section 2(47) of this Act, of the OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission where it is stated that when a person availed or hired a service of a bank or a non-banking financial company (NBFC) for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer under the C. P. Act to that bank or NBFC.  Here the bank or the NBFC, as the case may be, is the Service Provider as defined in the Act whose service is availed by the Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of a n financial transaction like this case. However, we do not know whether the OP company is a registered banking company or an NBFC as there is no documents filed in this case regarding this matter, but the OP company took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise to deliver their goods/products or return higher amount after a particular period of time if they failed to deliver goods/products to the depositor.  Complainant deposited her money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OP company who were running their business with such offers.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that she visited the office of the OP company frequently to get back the maturity amounts but failed. Whether the OP company had issued notice to the complainant after the date of maturity to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OP company did not contest this case, nor the complainant had stated anything on this matter in her complaint petition as well as in her evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated above this can be said that the complainant has deposited her money in a specific Plan/Scheme of the OP company. The OP company failed to provide goods/products or return the money according to the Plan to the complainant. There is no contrary material before us which could counter or rebut the instant complaint as the OPs had not contested the case.  Complainant herself stated that she tried to deposit all the papers and documents before the OP-1 hoping to get return of her deposited money but failed. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OPs which they must compensate. The OPs are also liable to return the amount of money in accordance with the plan. It is stated in the certificate that total accumulated LBP Benefits shall be 2.13/2.26/3.84/3.97 times of the Global Advance. But complainant claimed simple interest on her deposited amount from the date of deposit along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. But claim of compensation along with interest is not justified keeping in mind the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  DLF Homes Panchkulla Pvt. Ltd.  –Vs.– D. S. Dhanda & Others [II (2019) CPJ 117 (SC);  Civil Appeal Nos. 4910 – 4941 of 2019]. We think payment of the deposited amount together with a simple interest @ 9% on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposits 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 her grievance be redressed.

            Hence,  it is

ORDERED

            That the Complaint Case bearing No. CC/15/2023 allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant ₹50,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the respective dates of deposits till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The OPs are also directed to pay ₹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.

            Let a copy of this order be issued to both the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.