Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President— This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Panaji dated 28.2.1992 passed in complaint No. 58 of 91. The complaint was lodged by the complainant Mahesh Raikar alleging that Rs. 1,500/- were accepted from him by M/s. Wheel Magnets towards the booking of the Motorcycle. The complainant alleged that the opposite party demanded from him the entire amount of the motorcycle before the delivery which he refused as a result of which the complainant was not provided with the Motorcycle as per the order. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on an earlier occasion but an order was set aside by this Commission since the parties were not properly informed. After a fresh inquiry by the District Forum, the complaint again has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not entitled to compensation as no exact date of the delivery was mentioned by the complainant.

2. We have heard Shri Mahesh Raikar and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Adv. for the respondent. The complaint has been dismissed on the ground that there was no fixed date for delivery. In our view dismissal of the complaint in irrelevant situation is not justified. We gathered from the facts that the complainant had paid Rs. 1,500/- to the opposite party for the purchase of the vehicle in question. Thereafter without delivering the vehicle, the opposite party by sending letter dated 27.1.90 demanded a balance amount of the motorcycle. The transaction is covered under the Sale of Goods Act and the complainant has paid Rs. 1,500/- and he was to pay the balance after the receipt of the vehicle. In our view the opposite party was not justified in this circumstance to, demand the balance amount without the delivery of the vehicle. Under these circumstances we find that the claim of the complainant for refund of Rs. 1,500 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. is justified.

3. The complainant had booked the vehicle with M/s. Wheel Magnets, the opposite party, and therefore, they are legally bound to refund the amount to the complainant. We also find that the demand of the balance amount from the complainant without the delivery of the vehicle amounts to unfare trade practice inasmuch as no trader can retain the substantial amount for a longer period without delivering the goods. Under these circumstances we find that the dismissal of the complaint is in complaint is allowed and the opposite party M/s. Wheel Magnets is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,500/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of booking of the order, till repayment. The Appellant also be paid cost of Rs. 200/- by the opposite party.

Appeal allowed with cost.

–