Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    20 January, 2020.

Date of Judgement    :    31 August, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter called the said Act, against the Branch Manager, M/s. Sahara Q Shop East, hereinafter called the Opposite Party or OP, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OP arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OP company.

            The facts as stated in the complaint petition and the annexed document attached with it are that the Complainant deposited on 23/11/2013 his hard earned savings of amount Rs.20,000/- in the scheme of  the OP 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 a receipt on 23/11/2013 bearing no. 573002570753 stating the account no. as 893001511911.  Complainant stated in his complaint that the date of maturity was fixed on 23/11/2019 and the maturity amount was Rs.45,200/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity he visited the branch office of the OP company on 23/11/2019 and also on 30/12/2019 for receiving the maturity amount. But he failed to receive the maturity amount as the OP company did not pay any attention to his requests for disbursing the desired amount.  He then filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OP company (a) to disburse the maturity amount of Rs.45,200/- together with interest, (b) a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment together with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

            Complainant filed a copy of Receipt bearing no. 573002570753 (Certificate no. 893001511911) issued by the OP company on 23/11/2013 as annexure to the complaint petition.

            Notice was served upon the OP after admission to appear and contest the case by filing their written version.  OP appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  Later the OP failed to file any questionnaire and 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 factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed document is that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 23/11/2013 and 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. 573002570753 (having  Certificate No. 893001511911) on 23/11/2013 with Custoner ID: 815853003584.  It is stated in this receipt that a sum of ‘Global Advance’ of Rs.20,000/- is received from Shri Manoj Kumar Singh ‘for the period and as per the Terms & Conditions of Q shop purchase Advance Plan’.  In this receipt 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, the main intention of this Plan is to sell various products to the payee/customer.  The amount the complainant deposited as stated in this receipt 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 intention of the complainant in investing his money in this scheme was to receive higher return. Nothing has been stated in the complaint about his intention of purchasing any goods or availing any service offered by the OP company.  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.

            In their written version OP denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They alleged that the complainant failed to submit the KYC and other documents for his claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that the complaint was imaginary and liable to be dismissed.  But they failed to establish their statement by explaining it with reasons.  No document has been filed by them in support of their claim.  Here, it is to be noted that the OP has confessed in their written version that there was a ‘maturity amount’, so there was a time limit after which this maturity amount was to be disbursed to the customer/complainant.  But the OP did not specify, even the complainant had not submitted any document, about the maturity amount and the time limit of this scheme/plan.  However, as the complainant had no intention to purchase any goods or to avail any service from the OP company except the return of higher amount, so he must expect the redemption 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. 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. Complainant stated that the maturity amount would be Rs.45,200/-, but no document has been provided in support of his claim. In this position I think payment of the deposited amount together with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of payment to the OP will be sufficient enough to meet the compensation and the redemption amount. The OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as the complainant was compelled to come to this Commission to get his grievance be redressed.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case bearing No. CC/28/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant Rs.20,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of deposit, i. e. from 23/11/2013 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- 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.