For Complainant          :             Self

For OP No.1                    :             Sri S. K. Mohanty, Advocate & associates.

For OP No.2                    :             None

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that being insisted by Agent of Ops 1 & 2, she agreed to deposit some amount with the OP.1.  It is submitted that the complainant made a fixed deposit of Rs.27, 850/- under Sahara Q Shop Plan-H Scheme vide Certificate No.562013990100 dt.18.06.2012 for a period of six years and the redemption value on maturity being 2.35 times on such deposit.  It is further submitted that the complainant has been approaching the Ops 1 & 2 regularly by producing documents to close the account on maturity but the OP.1 has been insisting the complainant to reinvest the money for a further period of 2 years.  The complainant submitted that the money is required for higher education of her daughter but due to non release of maturity amount, the complainant suffers serious mental agony.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.27, 850/- under the scheme Sahara Q Shop Plan-H with assured benefits and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                         The OP No.1 filed counter through its advocate admitting the deposit by the complainant under Sahara Q Shop Scheme on dt.18.06.2012 vide A/c. No.562013990100 but contended that at the time of deposit as advanced in favour of the Company, the complainant had not entered into a contractual liability with the Ops wherein she has agreed to abide with the terms and conditions of the scheme of Q. Shop.  It is further contended that the complainant approached the OP.2 for withdrawal of deposit without producing any document and when he was asked to furnish relevant documents, the complainant refused to furnish the same.  Thus denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                         In spite of valid notice the Op No.2 did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner and thus remained exparte. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case.  We have perused the documents on record.

4.                        In this case, deposit of Rs.27, 850/- by the complainant vide Certificate No. 562013990100 under Sahara Q. Shop scheme of the Ops on 18.06.2012 is an admitted fact.  It is seen from the deposit certificate that the scheme will be matured after 6 years with maturity value of 2.35 times of such deposit.  The case of the complainant is that he approached the OP.1 for maturity withdrawal of his deposit to be required for higher education of her daughter but the OP.1 without effecting maturity payment is insisting further deposit of amount for 2 years and hence he filed this case. 

5.                         The OP.1 stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try over this case as because the complainant has already entered into arbitration agreement with the Ops under which the dispute between the parties shall be decided by an Arbitrator.  The Op has not filed the copy of agreement in support of his above contention for our perusal.  It has been decided in a number of cases by the higher Forums that even if remedy of arbitration found provided in the agreement between the parties, it would not have barred the Forums under C. P. Act from redressing the cases of the complainant as because, the Act is not derogation of any other law for the time being in force as per Section-3 of C. P. Act.  In view of the above decision, this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this case.

6.                         Further it is stated that the complainant has not furnished any document at the time of approach to OPs and when she was asked to furnish documents, she denied.  This submission of the OP.1 does not sound good.  When a depositor approaches OP.2 for withdrawal of his deposit, he must have some documents with him and if any more documents are required, the consumer is to be suitably advised.  Official process for withdrawal is to be promptly taken up but the OP.1 has not taken in this case.  The complainant stated that for higher education of her daughter she needs money.  This is a special case and the Ops should have taken the matter of the complainant promptly.  Non-cooperation of the Ops in effecting payment to the complainant, in our opinion, amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is entitled for withdrawal of her money and the Ops are entitled to pay the same with due interest.

7.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant has deposited Rs.27, 850/- on 18.06.2012 and she wants to withdraw his money and she also can do it.  The Ops are to pay back the deposited amount with due interest as per scheme.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a cost of Rs.2000/-.

8.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.27, 850/- under Sahara.Q.Shop scheme with as usual rate of interest and benefits under the schemes from the date of deposit till actual payment and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  If the Ops failed to make payment within the given period, they are to pay Rs.100/- towards compensation per day to the complainant from the date of this order over and above the guaranteed interest under the scheme.

(to dict.)