A manufacturer's delay in refunding a booking amount is an unfair trade practice and the manufacturer is liable to pay interest on the amount at market rate from the date of the delay until the date of repayment.

Mr. Justice V.S. Kokje, President—The Complainant had booked a Montana Car manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1 M/s Sipani Automobiles Ltd. and deposited Rs. 10,000/- as the booking advance. On 9.6.1989 the Car was booked through the Opposite Party No. 2 M/s Chaudhary Tractor Agencies, Bhopal the dealer appointed by Opposite Party No. 1.

2. 10.11.90 the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the complainant that the price of the car has been raised to Rs. 1,95,000/- from the original price of Rs. 1,02,000/- and if, the complainant desires to continue the booking she should send an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant opted for discontinuance of the booking and on 7.2.91 wrote to the Opposite Party No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. All the formalities in this respect were completed by the complainant. On 21.3.91 the Opposite Party No. 1 again wrote to the complainant that the efficiency of the car has been enhanced and now the car is available on Rs. 1,90,000/-. However, if the complainant did not want the car, the Opposite Party No. 2 the dealer at Bhopal was being advised to refund the amount.

3. On 27.5.91 the complainant again wrote that she did not want the car and money be refunded. On 8.7.91, a telegram was sent to the Company and a confirmation letter of the telegram was also sent. In response on 17th July, 1991 the Opposite Party no. 1 wrote to the complainant that action for refund of amount of Rs. 11,400/- inclusive of interest upto 30th June, 1991 was being taken but the complainant was advised to purchase the car and get the sum of Rs. 11,400/- adjusted towards the price. The complainant again wrote to the Company to refund the amount. The money was demanded from Opposite Party No. 2 also, but there was no response. Ultimately, on 17.12.91 the Opposite Party No. 2 refused to pay back the amount and misbehaved with the complainant. After having failed to recover back the amount refunded, the complainant has filed this complaint.

4. According to the complainant apart from the loss of interest on the amount deposited, she has suffered a loss of about Rs. 1,90,000/- which she would have earned in the share business.

5. On notice being served on the Opposite Parties a cyclo styled reply which seems to have been kept prepared by the Opposite Party No. 1, was filed. It is obvious from the separate typing on the cyclostyled draft that the Opposite Party No. 1 has prepared a common written statement to be filed by filling in the blanks whenever need be. Liability to refund the amount has been accepted and it was stated that a sum of Rs. 12,100/- was remitted by cheque dated 31.7.92. The other liability has been denied.

6. The complainant has examined her husband and has also filed her own affidavit in support of the complaint. The Opposite Parties have cross-examined but have not led any evidence of their own. So far as the amount of Rs. 10,000/-it is admitted that it is refundable. However, the damages claimed by the complainant are disputed. On the overall material on record, we are of the opinion that the disputed amount of Rs. 10,000/- is refundable. On 2.9.92 an application was also filed putting the dishonor of cheque mentioned in the written statement on record.

7. So far as the damages on account of loss of profit in share business, we find that they are remote damages, which cannot be allowed on a summary enquiry. We would therefore not go into it and leave the complainant to take recourse under the general law if she still feels that these damages are recoverable. So far as the disputed amount of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, we are of the opinion that the refund was unreasonably delayed and, therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 should be made to pay interest on the amount at market rate and not on the contractual rate of 7% per annum.

8. The complainant had reported to the Opposite Party No. 1 on 7.2.91 for refund of the amount. The Opposite Party No. 1 was expected to refund the amount wit