NCDRC slaps Rs50,000 fine on Sahara for lapse in tracking investor’s payment
Moneylife Digital Team 27 June 2013

The NCDRC passed the order while pulling up Sahara for not updating its accounts regarding the repayment of a loan availed by one of its investors against the investment he had made in the scheme

The National consumer redressal commission has penalised Sahara India with a fine of Rs50,000 for failing to put in place a proper accounting system to keep track of the money invested by people in one of its schemes.

 

“It is indeed a sad state of affairs where the petitioner was taking money for the scheme launched by them (Sahara) for the benefit of the customers and they failed to put in place a proper accounting system to support this scheme,” the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said.

 

The NCDRC passed the order while pulling up Sahara for not updating its accounts regarding the repayment of a loan availed by one of its investors against the investment he had made in the scheme.

 

According to Jatakishore Das, he had invested Rs1 lakh in Sahara’s Swarna Yojana Scheme and availed a loan of Rs80,000.

 

Das, who resides in Odisha’s Deogarh district, claimed that he had repaid the loan with interest and it was endorsed in his passbook-cum-certificate by then branch/scheme manager of Sahara India’s Deogarh branch.

 

On the other hand, Sahara contended that the loan availed by Das was outstanding as its alleged repayment was not shown in the company’s ledgers.

 

The petitioner’s claim, however, was upheld by the district forum and the Odisha State Commission in their orders against which Sahara India had moved NCDRC.

 

The NCDRC bench presided justice VB Gupta, while slapping the fine of Rs50,000 on Sahara, found “no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity” in the state commission’s order and dismissed the company's plea.

 

The bench observed that if the company had indeed been keeping their accounts accurate, “they would not need to plead ignorance of entries regarding respondent’s (Das) loan in the passbook-cum-certificate due to lack of corresponding entry in the ledger book of the petitioner.”

 

It directed Sahara to pay half of the fine amount to Das and deposit the remaining in the consumer welfare fund.

Comments
ashwin bahl
1 decade ago
too little!
Array
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback