Consumer forum penalises Sahara Group, retail firm and agent to refund ₹1 lakh with interest to Chandigarh man
The complainant was led to believe he was depositing the amount in FDR that would mature after six years, giving good return
The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed the Sahara company to refund over ₹1,00,800 to a Chandiagrh resident and also pay ₹10,000 in compensation and ₹7,000 as cost of litigation.
Rashpal Singh from Dadumajra Colony, Sector 38-C had filed a complaint against Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Limited, Lucknow, the ; Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and Ghanshyam S Arya from Sector 38 West, DMC, Chandigarh.
In his complaint he stated that “attracted by high returns on maturity, as projected by Ghanshyam Arya, the complainant Rashpal Singh deposited ₹1,00,800 as FDR for a period 6 years with the opposite parties on September 5, 2012.”
As per the scheme, when on maturity, Rashpal approached the opposite parties to get his money back along with accruing benefits, the opposite parties instead dilly-dallied on the matter and refused to return the amount citing financial constrains. Hence, he filed the complaint.
Sahara contested the complaint and filed their joint written statement, pleading that Q Shop is not a fixed-deposit scheme and no FDR was ever issued by the company to the complainant.
They mentioned: “The complainant had simply made an advance to purchase products of the company. The account opened by the complainant is related with Sahara Q Shop Unique Product Range Limited Company. The said scheme relates to purchase of products through which a customer can purchase the products of the company every month for a period of six years as per his requirement through that money advanced by the customer at the time of entering into the scheme. There is no provision of payment of maturity amount and also no interest is payable over the advance amount.”
Ghanshyam said he acted in the capacity of an agent only and so he cannot be held liable for any violation whatsoever done by the company. The forum observed: “Undoubtedly, the opposite parties have admitted that they possessed ₹1,00,800 paid by the complainant for a long period of 6 years on which certainly they must have availed the interest.”
“It is an admitted fact that the complainant did not avail any services of the opposite parties. Hence, the act of the opposite parties for non-honouring their own scheme, non-explaining the terms and conditions thereof to the complainant so he could avail benefit of the same for 6 years, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which not only resulted in unnecessary litigation but also caused unprecedented harassment to the complainant,” it added.