Final Order / Judgement

Date of Filing             :    13 December, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    12 September, 2023.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Smt. Mira Pachal, 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 Unique Products Range Ltd., 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 supported by the annexed document attached with it are that the Complainant deposited on 06/09/2012 an amount of Rs.15,000/- in a scheme of  the OP wherein it was assured to the complainant that on maturity after six years of deposit the OP company would refund the maturity amount of Rs.37,600/-.  After receiving this amount the OP company issued a receipt on 06/09/2012, bearing no.562005342071.  Complainant stated in her complaint that the date of maturity was fixed on 06/09/2018 and the maturity amount was fixed at Rs.37,600/-.  Complainant alleged that after the maturity date she visited the branch office of the OP company on 06/09/2018, 12/12/2018 and lastly on 08/01/2019 for receiving the maturity amount. But she failed to receive the maturity amount as the OP company did not pay any heed to her requests for disbursing the maturity amount.  She then filed this instant complaint praying to direct the OP company (a) to disburse the maturity amount of Rs.37,600/- together with interest, (b) a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment together with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

            Complainant filed copies of (a) the receipt bearing no. 71019120541 (Certificate no. 562005342071) issued by the OP company on 06/09/2012 and (d) her Identity Card bearing no. MQC0093864 issued by the Election Commission of India 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 her Evidence on Affidavit. Later the OP failed to file any questionnaire and their 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

            Before entering into our discussion be it noted here that the complainant, Smt. Mira Pachal, has stated in her complaint petition that she had deposited Rs.15,000/- in the scheme whereas the annexed copy of the receipt bearing no. 71019120541 (Certificate no. 562005342071) issued by the OP company on 06/09/2012 states that the OP company ‘Received from Smt. Mira Pachal A sum of Global Advance Rs.16,000/- (Sixteen thousand only)’. So the complainant herself made a mistake in declaring her deposited amount. In this position, by following  the landmark decision reported in (1994) 1 SC 243 / 1994 AIR 787, Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, let us take the deposited amount as Rs.16,000/- instead of the amount declared by the complainant.

            Now, the factual matrix of this case as emerged from the complaint and the annexed documents is that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.16,000/- on 06/09/2012 and the OP company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., having its office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, through its service centre at Kadamtala (2704) under Shivpur Sector, Howrah, issued a Receipt bearing no. 71019120541 (having Certificate No. 562005342071, which the complainant stated in her complaint petition as the receipt no.) on 06/09/2012 with Custoner ID: 827042002922, for the payment of Rs.16,000/-.  It is stated in this receipt that this amount is  being received as ‘Global Advance’ from Smt. Mira Pachal ‘Under Q Shop Plan-H [PLAN-H] for the period and as per the Terms & 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 and or hospitality Products’.  From this citation of the receipts it is clear that, as there is no other documents provided, the accumulated LBP Benefits are linked with the consumption pattern of the payee/customer.  On the reverse page of this receipt there is an explanation of the LBP Benefit. There it is stated, in short, that if an esteemed customer is joined the “Plan-H” by giving Global Advance of Rs.20,000/- and he/she purchases Q Shop hospitality products under Plan-H, his/her cumulative LBP benefit in 72 months will be 22.654 which, in turn, will be 2.13 times of the Global Advance amount.  There are some other explanations also about the LBP benefits, but as the complainant had no intention to purchase specified goods and her only intentions was to receive higher return from her deposited amount, so we are not going to discuss further about the LBP benefit.  The statement of the complaint petition says that the complainant’ only intention in investing her money in this scheme was to receive higher return. Nothing has been stated in the complaint about her intention of purchasing any goods or availing any service offered by the OP company. Here, we are in the dark about the tenure of the plan and also about the refund policy.   

            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 her claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that this 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 must be 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 under the Plan except to receive a higher amount, so she must expect the ‘maturity amount’ after the time period fixed for this Plan.  Here, according the complaint, the complainant’s efforts to get back the maturity amount from the OP company became fruitless.

            In conclusion of the discussion as stated above I am of the view that the complainant has deposited her money in a specific Plan/Scheme of the OP company intending to get higher return of her money after a specific time which became unsuccessful. The OP company failed to return the money according to the desire of 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. This means that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the OP by not refunding the maturity amount and for this reason they must compensate. The OP is liable to return the amount of money in accordance with the plan. Complainant stated that the maturity amount would be Rs.37,600/- where she stated the deposited amount as Rs.15,000/-, but no document has been provided in support of her claim. In this position I think payment of deposited amount together with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the date of payment till realisation will be sufficient enough to meet the compensation together with the maturity amount. The OP is also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost since the complainant has been compelled to come to this Commission to get her grievance be redressed.

            Hence,

                                        it is

ORDERED

            That the complaint Case No. CC/396/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party.

            The Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant Rs.16,000/- together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum thereon with effect from 06/09/2012 till the date of this order within 60 days from the date of this order.  The Opposite Party 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.

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

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.