‘Shopkeeper can’t cite sale terms for own advantage’

Neela Dharwadkar wanted two white stone gold bangles made. She approached Navdurga Jewellers in Panaji, Goa, whose owner Vasant Madkaikar quoted the gold rate as Rs 2,750 a gram and gave an estimate of Rs 75,000 to make the bangles. The jeweller gave a commitment to deliver them in three weeks. Neela paid Rs 10,000 on March 25, 2016, as advance, and was asked to take delivery on April 14.
A day prior, Neela phoned to confirm the delivery, but the shopkeeper told her the bangles were not ready as skilled labourers needed for the work were unavailable.So Neela told him to cancel the order and refund the advance, but the shopkeeper refused to return the money. So, she requested that delivery be given latest by April 28. She phoned a day prior to check whether he would accept the balance payment by cheque. She was told to pay in cash and accordingly Neela withdrew money from her account.
On 28th, the shopkeeper phoned Neela to say that the bangles would take another week. When Neela asked him to 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.
As the shopkeeper did not respond, she complained to the North Goa District Forum. The shopkeeper said the delay was due to a strike which went on till April 8. He relied on printed terms of his booking receipt that 50% of the total price had to be paid to
place a confirmed order. He contended that Neela had promised to pay the balance advance the next day, but had failed to do so. He denied he had promised to deliver the bangles by April 14. The shopkeeper claimed 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 his 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 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 with interest at 18% p.a. from March 25, 2016 onwards. Time of 30 days was given for compliance. 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 granted.
The jeweller challenged this order in the Goa State Commission. By its order of May 7, 2018 , the State Commission dismissed the appeal.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e mail is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)