AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 485 wordsDEFICIENCY in service is grievance of the complainant.
CASE of complainant is that he booked a scooter manufactured by opposite party. After waiting for three years when complainant could not get allotment of a scooter booked, he cancelled the order of booking. He sent the original documents to opposite party for refund of advance deposited. After seven years from the date of receipt of original booking documents for refund, no action was taken for which reminders were issued. However, the amount was not refunded as promised and accordingly, on 26.3.1991 complaint was filed. Notice sent through registered post was received by opposite party on 4.5.1991 as indicated in the postal acknowledgement. Thereafter, the amount of Rs. 500/- with cost of Rs. 50/- was returned by the opposite party to the complainant which was encashed on 27.7.1991.
Despite valid service of notice, opposite party has not entered appearance to state his case.
ON the assertion of the complainant which we have no reason to disbelieve, we are satisfied that a clear case of deliberate deficiency of service is made out. This Commission in many cases has held that delay in refund is a deficiency in service. National Commission in respect of L.M.L. Vespa in the decision reported in 1991 (1) CPR 184 (Mumbai Grahak Panchayat v. M/s. Lohia Machines Ltd.) directed refund of the amount deposited with 18% interest from the date of receipt of cancellation advice. In respect of this opposite party, Maharashtra State Commission has directed refund of the amount with 18% per annum for the period between the date of expiry of 60 days from the date of booking till the date of actual repayment of the advance in the decision reported in 1991 (1) CPR 603 (Mumbai Grahak Panchayat v. Andhra Pradesh Scooters Ltd.). Same is the direction of the Maharashtra State Commission as is seen from the decision reported in 1991 (1) CPR 543 (Mumbai Grahak Panchayat v. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.) and 1991 (1) CPR 623 (Mumbai Grahak Panchayat v. M/s. Chamundi Mopeds Ltd.). In case interest at that rate would have been paid, voluntarily, we would have dismissed this complaint. When interest has not been paid, we direct that opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the letter cancelling the booking seeking the refund till the date of refund of Rs. 500/- with cost of Rs. 50/- on 27.7.1991. Since opposite party has not entered appearance, we are not inclined to award any further compensation in the present case. If, however, the interest would not be paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order, compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day of delay beyond two months shall be paid by the opposite party to the complainant till the amount is paid or realised. We ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
