'Shopkeeper can't cite sale terms for own advantage'

Neela Dharwadkar wanted to get two white stone gold bangles made. She approached Navdurga Jewellers in Panaji whose owner Vasant Madkaikar quoted the gold rate as being Rs 2,750 per gram and gave an estimate of Rs 75,000 for making the bangles. He gave a commitment to deliver the bangles within three weeks. So Neela paid Rs 10,000 on March 25, 2016 as advance, and was asked to take delivery on April 14.
A day prior, when Neela phoned to confirm the delivery time, the shopkeeper informed her that the bangles were not ready as skilled labourers needed for the work were not available. So Neela requested him to cancel the order and refund the advance, but the shopkeeper refused to return her money. Left with no alternative, Neela requested that delivery be given latest by April 28, 2016. She phoned a day prior to enquire whether he would accept the balance payment by cheque. She was told to pay in cash, as cheque payment would attract 1% VAT which was not acceptable. So Neela withdrew money from her account to make the cash payment.
On April 28 morning the shopkeeper phoned Neela and told her that the bangles would not be ready and it would take another week. When Neela asked him to cancel the order and refund her money, he told her that Rs 6,000 would be deducted as cancellation charge. Neela recorded this in a letter sent by registered post and demanded a full refund of the advance.
As the shopkeeper did not respond, she filed a complaint before the North Goa District Forum. The shopkeeper contested the complaint saying that the delay was due to a strike which went on till April 8. He relied on the printed terms of his booking receipt that 50% of the total price had to be paid for placing a confirmed order, and explained that this was to prevent loss due to fluctuation in gold rates. He contended that Neela had promised to pay the remaining advance the next day, but had failed to do so. He denied he had ever promised to deliver the bangles by April 14. The shopkeeper claimed that the bangles were made, but the delay was due to the fitter who had to affix the stones, so he was entitled to levy the cancellation charge towards labour cost.
The forum overruled the shopkeeper's objections by observing that if the booking deposit of Rs 10,000 were inadequate, the order should neither have been accepted nor processed. The forum concluded that by accepting the order, the shopkeeper had waived his own terms, and so no reliance could be placed on the printed booking conditions. Also, since the facts set out in Neela's notice had not been replied to by the shopkeeper, it would not be possible to believe his submissions made in reply to the complaint. Hence the complaint was allowed, with a direction to refund the entire advance of Rs 10,000 along with interest at 18% p.a. from March 25, 2016 onwards. Time of 30 days was given for compliance, and if delayed, further interest at 9% p.a. would be payable. Compensation of Rs 50,000 was awarded, payable within 30 days, or with 18% interest in case of delay. Additionally, costs of Rs 10,000 were also granted.
The jeweller challenged this order in appeal before the Goa State Commission. By its order of May 7, 2018 delivered by Justice U V Bakre for the Bench along with Vidhya Gurav, the State Commission concurred with the reasoning given by the forum and dismissed the appeal.
The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e-mail is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in