The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a city-based automobile dealer to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to a complainant for not returning fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) as promised.
The dealer offered banking services to the complainant, Shashi Bala, a resident of Sector 20. The commission asked Hind Motors, Industrial Area to return the amount of FDRs, deposited on different dates, to Bala along with the interest. The commission also directed the automobile dealer to pay Rs 30,000 as cost of litigation.
Bala, who retired as a clerk in 2011, stated in her complaint that the automobile dealer was offering banking services and was promising good rate of interest. Impressed by that, she deposited various amounts on different dates with the company against the rate of interest, varying between 11.5 per cent to 12.75 per cent.
Most of the FDRs matured in the fourth quarter of 2015 and others in the first quarter of 2016.
The complainant was in need of money, so she requested the dealer to release the amount as promised within two months.
The company asked her to deposit the original FDRs to settle the claim. Thereafter, she came to know that her amount was transferred by the company to another company by the name of – “Hind INNS and Hotels Ltd” – without her consent.
Bala again approached the company’s representatives in October 2015, however, they refused to do the needful.
She then wrote a letter to the company’s representatives on December 10, 2015, with a request to release the amount deposited, but her money was not released.
The complainant then filed a police complaint in which inquiry is still on.
She added that in all the FDRs, it is specifically mentioned that before maturity, upon a notice of 15 days, the amount will be refunded.
When repeated requests failed to yield any result, she filed a complaint in the consumer courts on February 29 this year seeking refund of amount of Rs 22,69,830.
In its reply, the company stated that on account of suppression of material facts, this complaint deserves to be dismissed, however, nothing was further elaborated, as to which material fact has not been disclosed by the complainant.