This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant, in a nutshell; is that he enrolled himself in the Sahara Q- Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Plan-H against Receipt No.71015943803 by paying Rs.40,000/-. Sahara Q- Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Plan-H is plan of 6 years and the redemption value was Rs.47,087/- for advance amount of Rs.20,000/- . On maturity the complainant approached the OP 2 to refund the redemption value. The OP 2 refused to refund the redemption value. Complainant vide letter dated 15.02.2019 requested the OP 1 to pay the redemption value but such letter was unattended. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs 1 and 2. Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached this Commission for necessary reliefs as mentioned in the prayer portion of the Consumer Complaint.

The OPs 1 and 2 have contested the case by filing WV denying all the material allegations made out in the Consumer Complaint. The specific case of the answering OPs is that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the CP Act and relationship between the parties are debtor and creditor. The complainant did not come to the office of the OP 2 along with original documents and KYC for process of disbursement of payment. There is no deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. Thus, the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the Consumer Complaint with cost.

Despite service of notice the Proforma OP No. 3 Sanjay Kumar Mondal did not contest the case by filing WV. Thus, the case has been proceeded ex-parte against the OP 3.

We have perused the Consumer Complaint, WV of OPs 1 and 2, E/chief of the complainant, questionnaire of the OPs and reply of the complainant.

On perusal of the photocopy of receipt bearing No. 71015943803  dated 21.08.2012, it appears to us that the complainant enrolled himself in the Sahara Q Shop Products Range limit ed  Plan H by paying Rs.40,000/-.We have it from photocopy of documents that the redemption value is Rs.42,654/- for advance amount of Rs.20,000/-. It further appears from the said document that the ttl benefit in 6 years becomes to Rs.76,744/-. Despite expiry of redemption period the OPs 1 and 2 did not pay the redemption value. Having no other alternative the complainant approached the OP 1 by submitting a  letter to pay redemption value but such letter was unattended.

The OP 1 and 2 collected money from various investors and amassed their wealth attracting the investors for lucrative returns. But when time comes for repayment of redemption value, OPs 1 and 2 did not respond to the representations of the investors, neither did they act in response to their duties and obligations. This is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade to some extent. As soon as the complainant paid money of anticipation of getting that with assured interest, he becomes the Consumer under the OPs in terms of Consumer Protection Act.
The OPs 1 and 2 did not carry out their liabilities and obligations as promised and did not pay back the redemption value. This is nothing but deficiency in service by the OPs. The deficiency of the OPs 1 and 2 led the complainant to face physical, mental harassment and financial distress to some extent.

Despite given opportunity to the OPs 1 and 2 they did not file their E/chief. They did not assist the Commission to find out the truth because truth was known to them. The evidence of the complainant is remained unchallenged. The answering OPs did not controvert the allegations leveled against them by the complainant by filing E-chief. The OP 3 being the agent of OP 2 and he has no liability to refund the redemption value to the complainant.

In the foregoing observation, the complaint is allowed against the OPs 1 and 2 with following directions:-

1. OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay redemption amount of Rs.76,744/- to the complainant within 60 days from today.
2. OPs 1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment within the specified period.
3. OPs 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.

            Copy of the judgment be given to the parties as per rules. The judgment be uploaded on the website of this Commission for perusal of the parties.