Date of Filing             :    26 November, 2019.

Date of Judgement    :    16 April, 2024.

Mr.  Dhiraj Kumar Dey,  Hon’ble Member.

            This case arises when Sri Bimal Kumar Daga, hereinafter called the Complainant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) against (1) the Branch Manager, (ii) the Zonal Manager and (iii) the Chairman, all of M/s. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd. (M/s. Sahara India), hereinafter called the Opposite Parties or OPs, alleging deficiency in service occurred from the part of the OPs arising out of non-payment of invested amount after the expiry of the plan period.

            The brief fact of the complaint, as emerged from the complaint petition and documents annexed with it, is that the Complainant, Sri Bimal Kumar Daga, deposited a total amount of ₹1,74,100/- on different dates of the year 2012 in a scheme of the OPs. After receiving these amounts the OP-1 issued six certificates on the respective dates of deposit 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.  He 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 to return the payable amounts after a few months. Some months have passed but the OPs failed to return his money. He frequently requested the OPs to refund his invested money but he failed to receive.  He then sent a letter to all the above mentioned OPs on 30/10/2019 requesting them to return his invested amount which also yielded no result though the OPs received his letter.  Finding no other way to get back his deposited 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 ₹1,74,100/- paid by him as per their rules and regulations along with interest from the dates of deposits, (c) simple rate of interest upon all dues till realisation,  (d) all litigation costs and any other relief or reliefs as this Commission may deem fit and proper as per law.

            Complainant filed copies of (i) the six certificates issued by the OP-1 being nos. 562013223749, dated 25/05/2012; 562013182667, dated 07/06/2012; 562013192523, dated 08/06/2012; 562013253348, dated 14/06/2012, 562005340126, dated 07/09/2012  & 562005340135, dated 07/09/2012, and (ii) the letter dated 30/10/2019 issued by him to the OPs along with the postal track reports 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.  OPs appeared through their Ld. Advocate and filed their written version.  Then the complainant filed his Evidence on Affidavit.  OPs did not file any questionnaire, nor did they file their evidence. 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 OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. 

DECISION WITH REASONS

            The material facts of this case, as is brought forward through the complaint and the annexed documents, are that the complainant had deposited ₹1,74,100/- at the office of the OP - 1 on different dates, the OP-1 issued six certificates details of which are stated below:

            The OP-1 issued these certificates to the depositor on those dates on behalf of their company, i. e. M/s. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., having its registered office at Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow – 226024.

            It is stated in each of these certificates that ‘Received from Customer Shri/Smt/Miss BIMAL KUMAR DAGA   A sum of Global Advance ₹/- (respective amounts) Under “Q shop Plan-H [“PLAN-H”] for the period and as per the Terms & Conditions of the Plan’.  In these certificates it is also written 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 pattern of “Q Shop Plan-H” Goods and or Hospitality Products’. [Emphasis provided]. On the reverse page of these certificates 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.  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 that the OPs failed to provide any goods or products to the depositor/complainant, so we are not going to discuss further in this matter.

            In their written version the OPs denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition. They alleged that the complainant failed to submit in time the KYC and other documents for his claim for the maturity amount. The OP stated that this complaint was imaginary and liable to be dismissed.  No document has been filed by them in support of their claim.  Here, it is to be noted that the OPs have confessed in their written version about the maturity amount which was to be disbursed to the depositor/complainant. So, the complainant/ depositor must expect the ‘maturity amount’ after the time period fixed for this scheme. Here, according to the complaint, the OP company failed to provide him their goods/products within the plan period of 6 years and the complainant’s repeated efforts to get back the amount after the expiry of the plan period became fruitless. Complainant alleged that despite his repeated requests the OPs did not disburse the maturity amount after the expiry of the time period in his favour and thereby this case has arisen.

            A question now arises whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?  The facts state that the 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/maturity amount.  This implies that the complainant/depositor is a “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Sec. 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019] who intended to avail the “Service”, as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the C. P. Act, 1986 [Sec. 2(42) 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 company for a consideration then the person can be called as a Consumer, under the C. P. Act, of that company.  Here the company in question is the Service Provider whose service is intended to avail by the Depositor/Consumer.  So, a Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to try a dispute arising out of the financial transaction like this case.  The OPs took deposit of the said amount for a particular scheme with a promise to return higher amount after a particular period of time.  Complainant deposited his money with a hope to get return of higher amount from the OPs who were running their business with such offers, whether it is in the form of monetary benefit or in the form of providing goods/services.  So question of commercial transaction does not arise.  Complainant stated that he requested the OPs repeatedly to refund the global advance amount but failed. Whether the OPs had issued notice to the depositor/complainant after the expiry of the plan period to follow the withdrawal procedure or not is not clear as the OPs did not contest this case after filing their written version and the complainant has not stated anything on this matter in his complaint petition as well as in his evidence on affidavit and B.N.A.

            In conclusion of our discussion as stated herein above we are of the considered view that the complainant has deposited his money in a specific Plan/Scheme of the OPs. The OPs failed to provide goods/products or return the money according to the Plan to the complainant. No evidence has been filed by the OPs to establish that the complainant failed to submit KYC and other necessary documents for disbursement of the maturity amount whereas the complainant himself stated that he tried to deposit all the papers and documents to the OP-1 and also sent letter to all the OPs 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 liable to return the amount of money in accordance with the plan. It is stated in the certificates 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 these certificates. The complainant claimed simple interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit along with compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.  But it is a settled principle that when interest is awarded in the form of compensation then awarding compensation together with interest will be unjustified. We think payment of the deposited amount together with a simple interest @ 9% per annum on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposit will serve the purpose in this case. The OPs are also liable to pay ₹5,000/- 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/369/2019 allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the complainant ₹1,74,100/- together with a simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on this amount with effect from the respective dates of deposit till the date of this order.  The OPs are also directed to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.

            The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the above orders within 60 days from the date of this order 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, on demand, to all the parties of both sides free of cost. 

Dictated and corrected by me

            Member.