Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    09 January, 2020.

Date of Judgement    :    30 November, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Binod Kumar Tewari, 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 Unique Products Range Ltd., hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of maturity amount by the OPs after the expiry of the plan period.

            The factual Matrix of the complaint, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it, is that the Complainant deposited on 30/03/2013 a total sum of ₹30,000/- in a scheme of the OPs. After receiving this amount the OP-1 issued two certificates each of ₹15,000/- on that date for purchasing chosen products from a range of goods of the OPs. Complainant stated that the OPs failed to deliver any goods/products to the complainant as per their specification within the plan period of 6 years.  Complainant alleged that after the expiry of 6 years he visited the office of the OP-1 to deposit the original certificates and other relevant documents. But the OP-1 did not receive the certificates, but assured him that after some months they would refund the maturity amount.  Some months had passed but he could not get back the maturity amount as the OPs failed to refund. He then sent a letter to all the OPs on 25/10/2022 which also yielded no result.  Finding no other way to get back his money complainant filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OPs (a) to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for his physical and mental harassment caused due to negligent act of the OPs, (b) to refund ₹30,000/- paid by him together with interest from the date of deposit till realisation, (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) litigation cost of ₹50,000/-  and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper as per law.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the two certificates issued by the OP-1 on 30/03/2013 and (ii) the letter dated 25/10/2022 issued by him to the OPs 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 appeared on behalf of the OPs nor did they file any written version and consequently the case proceeded ex parte.  The complainant then 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 documents are that the complainant had deposited a sum of ₹30,000/- on 30/03/2013 at the office of OP-1. The OP-1 issued two certificates to the complainant/depositor, the details of deposits and the corresponding certificates issued by the OP-1 are given below:

The above table shows that the complainant deposited a sum of ₹30,000/- in a particular scheme of the OP company and the OP company through its Service Centre, Shibpur, the OP-1 stated herein above, issued two certificates on that date to the depositor/complainant.

            It is stated in each of these certificates that ‘Received from Customer BINOD KUMAR TEWARI   A sum of Global Advance ₹15,000/- Under “Q shop Plan-H [“PLAN-H”] for the period and as per the Terms & Conditions of the Plan’.  In this certificate it is also stated that ‘total accumulated LBP Benefit shall 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 patterns of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products’. On the reverse page of the certificate there is an explanation about the ‘LBP Earning and Benefit’ wherein it is stated as an example that if an esteemed customer has given ₹20,000/- as a Global Advance then the benefit of earned LBP in 72 months would be ₹22,654/- subject to purchasing the Hospitality products of the OP company and the Advance will be adjusted for such purchase.  So, according to this explanation the total Benefits under “Plan-H” on consumption/purchase of Sahara Q Shop Hospitality product would amount to ₹42,654/-, i. e. 2.13 times of Global Advance Amount.  But, as per the complainant’s allegation, the OPs failed to provide any goods or products to the depositor/complainant, so we are not going to discuss further in this matter.

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

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protetion Act, 2019?  The facts state that complainant deposited some money in a specific scheme of the OPs 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 the C. P. Act, 2019, of the OP company.  There is an array of judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble National Commission wherein 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 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 return higher amount after a particular period of time within which they have failed to provide goods/products to the customer.  So, question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he visited the office of the OP-1 frequently to get back the maturity amount 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 his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated above I am of the view that the complainant has deposited his 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 himself stated that he tried to deposit all the papers and documents to the OP-1 with a hope to get back his 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 Benefit shall be 2.13/2.26/2.35/3.84/3.97/4.06 times of the Global Advance.  But the specific time period has not been stated in this certificate. The complainant claimed simple interest on his 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 date of deposit, i. e. from 30/03/2013, will serve the purpose in this case. The OPs are also liable to pay ₹8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost as the complainant has been 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/14/2023 allowed ex parte against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant ₹30,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of deposit, i. e. from 30/03/2013,  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.