DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK

Dated the 22nd day of February, 2021

C.D Case No. 12 of 2019

                                        Present 1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member

                                                     2. Afsara Begum, Member

1. Smt. Akshaya Parhi

W/O Late Sudhakar Parhi

2. Haimabati Nandana Himanshu Sekhar Parhi

3. Trinayan Chandra Sekhar Parhi

4. Soumyashree Subhranshu Parhi

All these 3 are S/o Late Sudhakar Parhi

At- Apartibindha (Kumbhara Sahi),

Po- Bhadrak,

Ps- Bhadrak (T),

Dist- Bhadrak                                                                          

                                                                                          …………..  Complainant

                                                                      Versus

1. The Sector In-Charge, Sahara India Finance Company Ltd.                    Bhadrak Sector Office- In front of Behera Market Complex, Slandi By-pas Po/Ps/Dist- Bhadrak

2. Managing Director, Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd.

Sahara India Bhawan, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow- 226024

AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700020                                                                                                                   

                                                                                           …….OPPOSITE PARTIES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Counsel For Complainant: Sri N. C. Mohapatra, Adv & Others

Counsel For the OPs        :  Sri M. P. Singh, Adv

Date of hearing:   17.02.2021

Date of order:       22.02.2021

BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER

               This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps. While the case is pending in the present Court the complainant namely Sudhakar Padhi S/o Bansidhar Padhi expired on 06.03.2020. The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner filed an affidavit before the Court along with the death certificate of the deceased petitioner requesting the Commission to entertain the substitution petition filed by the legal heir which was allowed and the legal heirs as mentioned above are substituted as complainants of this case. The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a bonifide investor under Sahara India Q Shop Plan-H, popularly known as SAHARA INDIA LTD, a non-banking financial institution accepting deposit from the common people in shape of term/fixed deposit for a specific period and to sell the product of the company through the Sector Offices and other outlets. Being motivated by the Sector Manager with a promise and assurance for alluring return, the complainant invested a sum Rs 2,67, 500/- under Q-Shop plan for a period of 6 years (72 months) which was to be matured on 31.07.2018. The total amount invested by the complainant was Rs 2,67,500/- in two accounts as against which the complainant was to receive Rs 5,69,775/- on the date of maturity and the value of the product consumed by the investor was to be deducted from the above mentioned maturity value. It is also a fact that, whenever the complainant demanded for purchase of product/commodity, the Sector Office failed to provide the products stating that this Sector Office does not deal with those products and also assured to pay back the maturity value in shape of cash. But on the date of maturity when the complainant demanded for payment of the maturity value, the O.Ps did not pay the same on the date of maturity. As such the O.Ps are liable to pay Rs 5,69,775/- as on the date of maturity. The details of investment and maturity value are mentioned here under in a table.

O.Ps objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. In submitting written version O.Ps have stated that the present Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the case for adjudication as the complainant has signed an agreement with the O.Ps is bound to adhere to the terms and conditions. According to the terms of the agreement the dispute shall be decided by arbitration as per Arbitration and Reconciliation Act 1996. Accordingly the O.Ps cited the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case No. 8SCC618 for perusal of the Commission. It is also stated by the O.Ps that the Sahara Q-Shop Plane-H is a commodity based business wing of the company for marking of goods against advanced deposit of money and also mentioned that the Q-Shop Unique Product Range Ltd. company matter is sub-judice before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

On the contrary the complainant argued that he has in many more times demanded for purchase of commodities from the Sector Office of the company but the sector office expressed inability to provide the commodities in lieu of money as it does not deal with such business and no commodity is available with the Sector Office.

On perusal of complaint of the complainant, written version of the O.Ps, materials available on record and hearing of parties of this case it is observed that the O.Ps have failed to substantiate with material evidence in favour of their contentions. Although the O.Ps have referred the terms and conditions of the agreement, they did not submit the copies of the agreement before the commission. Secondly the Sector Manager failed to provide commodities on demand of the complainant in saying that the commodities are not sold in the Sector Office and the complainant is entitled to get back 2.13 times of his investment in shape of cash after expiry of 6 years. As such the O.Ps are liable to pay 2.13 times of invested on the date of maturity i.e. on 31.07.2018. Furthermore as regards arbitration, it is the responsibility of the O.Ps to appoint arbitrator for arbitration. But in the instant case the O.Ps have failed to discharge their legitimate duties with regards to appointment of arbitrator which amounts to deficiency of service and non-payment of maturity value also amounts to unfair trade practice and therefore the O.Ps are liable to pay the total maturity value as mentioned in the above table.           

                    From the above facts and circumstances it is understood that the O.Ps have intentionally and deliberately caused inordinate delay in payment of the maturity value of the above mentioned account which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It is also felt that the amount deposited by the complainant was his hard earned money saved/invested with the O.Ps to meet the expenses of his future requirements.     

                       Therefore it is felt necessary to allow the case for payment of the maturity value as mentioned in the above table together with future interest and cost & compensation.                                                                                     

ORDER

                     In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps with cost and compensation. O.Ps are directed to pay maturity value of Rs 5,69,775/- along with future interest along with compensation of Rs 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which additional 7% interest P.A shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of order till the date of payment. 

                     This order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 22^nd   February, 2021 under my hand and seal of the Commission.