A district consumer commission in Uttar Pradesh has directed Sahara India entities to refund Rs 11,350 along with interest and compensation to a woman who saved Rs 300 per month for years after investing in a recurring deposit scheme.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bahraich, held that the company could not deny payment merely because the deposits had been shifted to another Sahara-linked scheme and found a deficiency in service in withholding the matured amount.
Commission president Suresh Chandra Bharti and member Dr Monika Priyadarshini were hearing a complaint filed by Rani Soni against Sahara India officials and entities.
“The complainant’s deposited amount was not returned even after maturity despite repeated requests, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,” the commission said on June 5.
The commission said that the deposits were initially collected under one scheme and subsequently shifted to another Sahara-linked scheme at the direction of company officials. (Image generated using AI)
What commission ordered
- Partly allowing the complaint, the consumer commission directed Sahara India to pay Rs 11,350, the amount found due to the complainant.
- Interest at 6 per cent per annum from March 11, 2022, until actual payment.
- Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment.
- Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
- The commission ordered that the amount be paid within 45 days.
- It further ruled that if the payment is not made within the stipulated period, the company will have to pay additional interest at 8 per cent per annum on the awarded amount.
Small savings investment, long legal battle
According to the complaint, Rani Soni, a resident of Bahraich, was approached by a Sahara India agent who encouraged her to invest under a monthly deposit scheme.
She was told that Sahara offered attractive returns and would repay the principal amount with interest and a bonus upon maturity.
Trusting those assurances, she opened an account on March 26, 2010, and began depositing Rs 300 every month. She continued making regular deposits until April 23, 2012.
After the deposit period ended, she expected to receive her maturity amount.
Instead, she was informed that the original scheme had been discontinued and that her money was being transferred to another Sahara-linked investment plan.
Records placed before the commission showed that Rs 3,850 was adjusted into another scheme, following which receipts and certificates worth Rs 4,750 and Rs 5,600 were issued in June 2012 and February 2013, respectively.
Repeated visits, no refund
The complainant told the commission that she repeatedly approached Sahara officials and branch offices seeking payment of her matured investment.
Despite producing receipts and certificates and making several requests over the years, she did not receive her money.
According to the complaint, when she again contacted company representatives in December 2021, she was allegedly told that the local agent was merely an intermediary and that she should approach other offices of the company for payment.
When she visited the branch office carrying all relevant documents, she was allegedly informed that no payments were being processed through that branch, and her claim remained unresolved. Left with no alternative, she approached the consumer commission in March 2022.
Sahara contested complaint
Sahara entities opposed the complaint and argued that no amount was currently deposited with Sahara India or Sahara India Investment.
The company contended that the complainant had invested under a different Sahara-linked scheme and that the concerned entity had not been made a party to the proceedings.
It also argued that the complainant could not claim consumer status against Sahara India in the manner alleged and sought dismissal of the complaint.
One of the opposite parties also maintained that it was only acting as an agent and therefore could not be held liable for repayment.
Commission examined deposit receipts, certificates
After reviewing the documentary evidence, including deposit receipts, certificates and correspondence, the commission concluded that the complainant had successfully established that she had deposited money through Sahara’s branch network.
The forum observed that the deposits were initially collected under one scheme and subsequently shifted to another Sahara-linked scheme at the direction of company officials.
It noted that the opposite parties failed to produce convincing evidence to justify non-payment of the matured amount.
The commission further held that transferring funds between schemes could not extinguish the depositor’s right to receive her money after maturity.
It found that the complainant had proved her case through documentary records and that Sahara entities had failed to discharge their obligations.
Relief after more than decade
For the complainant, the order marks the end of a struggle that began with modest monthly deposits of Rs 300 and stretched across nearly 14 years.
The ruling is another reminder that even small investors can seek legal remedies when financial institutions fail to honour maturity commitments.
The commission‘s decision underscores that companies cannot avoid liability by transferring deposits between related schemes while leaving investors waiting indefinitely for their money.
Consumer takeaway
The Bahraich commission‘s order is a reminder that consumers should preserve deposit receipts, passbooks, certificates and correspondence with financial institutions.
Even when the amount involved is relatively small, investors can approach consumer forums if maturity proceeds are withheld or delayed.
The ruling also makes it clear that companies cannot evade responsibility by shifting deposits between different schemes while denying payment to investors.
The commission held that transferring funds between schemes could not extinguish the depositor's right to receive her money after maturity from Sahara. (Image generated using AI) 
The commission said that the deposits were initially collected under one scheme and subsequently shifted to another Sahara-linked scheme at the direction of company officials. (Image generated using AI)
Share
