Dt. of filing -26/11/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 19/08/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Sujan Dutta under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties namely 1) Branch Manager, Sahara Q shop Unique Products Range Ltd and 2) Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties (referred as OP hereunder).
Case of the Complainant in short is that he deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the Fixed Deposit Scheme introduced by the Opposite Party being Certificate No.56201280229 (Q Shop Plan H – Scheme) dated 31/08/2012 for a period of 06 years. Said money was deposited with Opposite Party No.1 and it matured on 31/08/2018. But when Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party No.1 to collect matured amount of Rs.70,500/-, Opposite Party did not pay any heed. Complainant also sent a letter dated 24/9/2018 to the Opposite Party but no payment was made. So ultimately present complaint has been filed praying for directing Opposite Parties to pay matured sum of Rs.70,500/- along with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint, certificate in question, receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1 on receiving the money and the copy of letter dated 2/11/2018.
On perusal of the record it appears that Opposite Parties did not take any step on receipt of the notice, neither any written version was filed and so the case proceeded ex-parte. However during the stage of argument, Opposite Party appeared and participated in argument. Opposite Party filed the written notes of argument and Complainant has also filed the brief notes of argument.
Opposite Party by filing the written notes of argument has mainly urged that the “Q Shop Plan-H” as per the terms and condition of the plan is based on certain specific consumption pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” goods and or Hospitality Products. It is totally product base scheme. It is also urged that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party, as due to dispute with SEBI and the matter is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, there has been delay in payment.
So the point requires determination is:-
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
In this case Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- under “Q Shop Plan- H Scheme” with the Opposite Parties is not in dispute. On a careful perusal of the certificate filed by the Complainant being Certificate No.562012808229 issued on 31/8/2012, it appears that the amount was not received by way of fixed deposit and neither there is a promise to pay interest as claimed by the Complainant in the instant complaint. There is no specific date of maturity mentioned in the certificate. The certificate indicates that the amount of Rs.30,000/- was received by Opposite Party from the Complainant under “Q Shop Plan-H Scheme” and it is based on certain/specific consumption pattern of goods and hospitality products. Be that as it may, but the point which is to be considered in the given facts and situation of this case is whether this Forum can at all allow the relief as prayed, keeping in view the specific plea taken by the Opposite Party in their argument that the matter is also pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Opposite Party has cited the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt petition (C) No.412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No.9813/2011 with contempt petition (Civil) no. 413 of 2012 in C.A No. 9833/2011 (SEBI Vs Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd & Others) passed on 21/11/2013 wherein following order has been passed :-
“We are convinced that the order dated 28/10/2013 passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. In such circumstances, we direct that the Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders.”
So apparently by the abovementioned order an embargo has been imposed on the transfer of movable and immovable properties of Sahara Group of Companies.
In response to the argument by the Opposite Party, Ld. Advocate for Complainant has argued that the said embargo has been lifted by the Hon’ble Apex Court by its order dated 4th June, 2014 and mainly emphasised in Para 23(a) of the judgement.
It appears that Hon’ble Appex Court in I.A. No.101- 103 in contempt petition (C) no.412-413 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No.9813 and 9833 of 2011, and contempt petition (C) No.260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.8643 of 2012, has observed in Para 23 clause (a) that :-
“FDS bonds and securities held by Sahara Group of Companies may be encashed by the Holders thereof subject to the condition that the maturity value/sale consideration of such FDS, bonds and securities shall be deposited in the designated bank account of SEBI referred to in the earlier part of this order and details of such maturity values and sale consideration furnished to this Court an affidavit to be filed within four weeks from the date the FDS, bonds and securities are encashed, sold and /or transferred.”
In the beginning of the said order Hon’ble Appex Court observed that ‘Saharas’ claim to have collected deposits from general public including cobblers, labourers, artisans and peasants in the form of what were described as ‘optional fully convertible debentures’.
In the present case in hand, there is no recital in the complaint that the Complainant has not moved in any other Court or Forum. However even assuming that he has not filed case anywhere else and has not agitated his grievance in any other Forum but fact remains that the matter similar in nature appears to be pending before the Hon’ble Appex Court and the Hon’ble Appex Court has passed several orders as to how the money collected from Sahara has to be disbursed. So, if any order is passed by this Forum may directly or indirectly violate the order of Hon’ble Appex Court and there is also possibility of passing of conflicting and contradictory orders.
In the relevant paragraph of decision referred to above, on which Complainant has emphasised, there is direction upon Sahara to deposit the amount with bank account of SEBI and the holders could withdraw it.
It further appears that the matter was also referred to three judges bench as one of the important order which was sought to be enforced in the said proceeding was passed by a three judges bench. Neither parties in this case in hand have filed copy of any further order or judgement passed by the Hon’ble Appex Court in those Appeals referred to above. So the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that there is no embargo, cannot be accepted in view of discussion as highlighted above. In such view of the matter, this Forum is unable to pass any order as prayed by the Complainant and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/640/2018 is dismissed on contest.
