Date of Filing: 28/12/2018
Date of Judgement: 20/06/2022
Mrs. Ashoka Guha Roy(Bera), Hon’ble Member.
Non-payment of the maturity value of one investment plan deposited under the Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. of the depositor herein, hence the the instant complaint filed by Shamima Begum against the Branch Manager, Manager and the Agent of the Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. herein mentioned as the OP No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for redressal.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 21,300/- vide certificate No. 562012808234, Receipt No. 71015961842, customer ID: 8169020014 under the Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. under shop “Plan H” for a period of Six years with total accumulated LBP Benefit 2.35 times of Global Advance, i.e. 21,300 x 2.35 LBP Benefit 50,055/-. Thereafter, when the deposited amount reached its maturity value on 31.08.2018 after the said date the complainant on several occasion for urgent need of money and for her daughter’s education approached the opposite party No.1 and also the agent, herein referred to as the Proforma OP NO.3 for refund of the said amount of Rs. 50,055/- but the OPs did not pay any heed to her grievance and due to such careless attitude of the opposite party, a demand notice dated 27.09.2018 through Ld, Advocate was served upon the OP No.1 & 2 through speed post with A/D, but the Ops kept silent, and so finding no other alternative the complainant was constrained to file the instant complaint against the OPs praying for refund of the maturity amount along with accrued interest and 50,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- and such other reliefs
Notice was duly served upon OP No. 1, 2 & 3 but OP No. 1 & 3 did not appear and the matter proceeded exparte against OP No. 1 & 3. Upon notice, only the OP No. 2 appeared and filed its written version, taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and hence not maintainable as there was no cause of action to file the instant case and also denied the fact of unfair trade practice. The OP further stated that policies are regulated as per the terms and conditions and the complainant failed to comply his part of obligation of the terms and condition stipulated under Sahara Scheme Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. and therefore the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The OP No. 2 further submitted that the payment could not be made due to dispute with SEBI the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court imposed embargo on the movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of Companies on 21.11.2013 subsequently another petition was filed by the Sahara Group of Companies to lift the embargo so that they can raise money from the asset and run business but the same was rejected. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops as alleged by the complainant.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant files the following documents along with the Complaint Petition :
1.Original Certificate bearing no. 562012808234
2.Original Customer ID: 8169020014
3.Adhar Card
4.PAN Card
5.Advocate’s Demand Notice
6.Affidavit-in-chief
7.Postal Track Report showing delivery confirmation of notice upon ops.
8.Written Notes of Argument.
Whereas the The Ld. Advocate for the Ops files
1. Written Version
2. A petition dtd.29.03.2019 to treat their W.V. as Affidavit-in-chief.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents there remains no doubt regarding the genuineness of those documents.From the complaint petition, evidence adduced by the complainant, and the W.V. filed by the Ops following points have been framed:-
Points for discussion
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP liable for deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision. After due consideration, of the materials on record i.e., the petition of complaint, original investment certificate, the written notes of argument, the written version of the OP No. 2, Affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant and the documents filed by the OP No. 2 and all other relevant materials on record and the oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, that the complainant invested or deposited under Q Shop Scheme of the O.Ps, being vide certificate No. 562012808234, Receipt No. 71015961842, customer ID: 8169020014 Rs. 21,300/ as on 30.08.2012 , with maturity value amounting to Rs. 50,055/ with the OP No. 1, and the OP No. 1 accepted the said amount and the O.Ps Company issued the certificates as noted above. .Such deposits were made for 06 years only.
Therefore, in our view the complainant is a consumer under OPs as per definition given U/S 2(1) (d) of the C.P Act 1986 and the O.Ps were the service providers of the complainant as per definition of U/S 2(o) C.P Act 1986.
We find that admittedly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 21,300/- vide certificate No. 562012808234, Receipt No. 71015961842, customer ID: 8169020014 under the Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. for a period of Six years with total accumulated LBP Benefit 2.35 times of Global Advance, i.e. 21,300 x 2.35 LBP Benefit 50,055/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of the total deposited money of Rs. 21,300/-with its maturity value plus up to date interest as per norms of the Ops. Admittedly, this Commission has territorial and as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of this case. Admittedly the case has been filed within the period of limitation of two years. Therefore, we find and hold that the case is maintainable and the complainant is a consumer under the OP Company.
Now, in order to ascertain, whether the OPs were deficient or not we have to consider the evidence of the complaint once again.
It is evident from the evidence of the complaint that the complainant invested/deposited under Q Shop Scheme of the O.Ps, being vide certificate No. 562012808234, Receipt No. 71015961849, customer ID: 8169020014 as on 30.08.2012 with its maturity value amounting to Rs. 50,055/ as on 31.08.2018 the OP No. 1 and OPs Company issued certificates as noted above which transpires that the redemption amount of Rs. 50,055/ as on 31.08.2018, being the maturity date mentioned in the certificate. The OP No:1 did not pay back the maturity amount against the said certificate as aforesaid even after making demand and sending advocate letter. The O.P No.1 and 3 are the Branch Manager and the Agent of the same company did not appear and exparte proceeded against OP No. 1 and 3.
The specific contention of the contesting OP No. 2 that due to case No.412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9812 2011 of SEBI under jurisdiction of the Apex Court the payment has remained stopped temporarily. On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that inspite of the embargo has been imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the OP did not hesitate to continue/carry on with new investment plan under the Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd .The instant Scheme was opened on 30.8.2012 and continued till date. Therefore, it is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the OPs.
The OP stated in its W.V. that the complainant violated the terms and condition stipulated under Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. On argument the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant pointed out that the clause contained in the Certificate issued by the Scheme of Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd which is written on its opposite page of the certificate.
From the above discussion it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity value of the deposited amount. It is the deficiency of the OP not to make payment of the maturity in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the OP Company.
In our view, of all the OPs are deficient in service for non disbursing the maturity amount of Rs.50,055/ to the complainant and the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that CC/691/ 2018 is allowed on contest against the O.Ps,
The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 50,055/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a as agreed in the certificate from the date of maturity within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within the aforesaid period of 2 months. In default of payment, the entire sum shall carry interest @10% p.a until realisation.
On payment of the sum by the O.Ps, the complainant shall hand over the original receipt/certificate to the O.Ps.
In default the Complainant is at liberty to file an Execution Application for enforcement of the final order before this District Commission as per provisions of law.
Let a free copy be given to the parties concerned as per provision of C.P.R,2005.
