Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 154

                                                                    Instituted on     : 03.03.2021

                                                                    Decided on       : 28.02.2023.

Kailash Garg age-44 yrs. S/o Sh. Ved Prakash R/o Gali Master Surat Ram, Jain Chowk, Bhiwani

                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. The Frachisee Head Sahara India Pariwar, Gohana Road, Near Honda Agency, Meham Distt. Rohtak-124112 Through its Authorizes Person.
2. The Regional Manager Sahara India Pariwar Gohana Road Near Sardana Hospital Opp. Visavkarma Mandir Panipat through its authorized person.
3. Territory Head Sahara Q-Shop North Office: Sahara India Complex, C-2, C-3, C-4 Sector-11 Noida-201301 through its authorized person.                                                                                    

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Mohit Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Jasvir Kundu, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that opposite party no. 1 contacted to the complainant in year of 2014 for investment/deposit in Sahara India Pariwar Branch Meham in fixed deposit scheme “SAHARA Q SHOP”. It is further submitted that on the assurance of opposite party no. 1, the complainant had deposited his hard earned money at opposite parties authorized franchisee office, Meham Branch Sahara India Pariwar Code 248. The detail of the amount, maturity date & certificate etc. are given below:-

 On maturity of the policy, the complainant applied for the release of the amount under the policy alongwith interest and other benefits but at first opposite parties assured to complainant to make the payment of the entire amount alongwith interest and other benefits but later on opposite parties started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 10.02.2021 to opposite parties but they did not respond the same. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to release the maturity amount of alleged deposits alongwith interest @18% p.a. w.e.f.11.01.2020 till the date of actual realization and also to pay Rs.55,000/- as harassment and Rs.31,000/- as litigation charges  to the complainant.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply and submitted that there is no provision under the scheme for providing interest. It is also wrong to say that the opposite parties represented that after 6 year on dated 11.01.2020, the complainant will get the maturity amount. There is no provision of the maturity or pre maturity under the Q shop scheme. It is submitted that after understanding the terms and conditions of Q Shop scheme, the complainant willfully visited the office of opposite parties and after understanding the terms and conditions, he made advance to purchase the products of the company. The complainant can get back only the advance amount deposited with the company and no interest is payable. The opposite party never refused to refund the advance amount but it is the complainant who made demand of interest and he himself refused to get the advance amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on 28.02.2022. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite parties have availed several opportunities for filing evidence but has failed to do so. As such, evidence of opposite parties was closed vide order dated 18.01.2023 of this Commission.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case it is not disputed that as per receipt Ex.C4, dated 11.01.2014 complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.50000/- with the opposite parties and  as per Ex.C5 the date of maturity is 11.01.2020 and the maturity amount is 117718/-. As per receipt Ex.C6 dated 11.01.2014, complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.50000/- with the opposite parties and  as per Ex.C7 the date of maturity is 11.01.2020 and the maturity amount is 117718/-. After the maturity of accounts, complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount alongwith interest but the alleged amount has not been paid to the complainant despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, the opposite parties through their reply have submitted that the complainant has failed to fulfill the required formalities of payment. But to prove their contention, opposite parties have not filed any document and also failed to adduce their evidence, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties no.1 to 3 are liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to 3 to pay the maturity amount  of  FDRs Ex.C5 & Ex.C7 amounting to Rs.117718/- each i.e. total Rs.235436/-alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 11.01.2020 to till its realization. Opposite party No.1 to 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. 

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

28.02.2023.

                                                                        ..................................................................

                                                                        Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.