Jeweller ordered to refund Rs 20,000 advance woman paid four years ago

Surat: A woman living in Pal, who could not make full payment for the jewellery that she had ordered owing to demonetization, will receive refund of an advance payment she had made four years ago to a prominent jeweller on Parle Point.
A consumer court in Surat recently told the jeweller to return an amount of Rs 20,000 along with 7% interest to complainant Darshana Patel as currency notes were banned by the central government. It also ordered Rs 5,000 to be paid to her as compensation.
Upholding Patel’s arguments that she could not pay the remaining amount of Rs 1.37 lakh due to the government policy, the court stated that demonetization was a policy decision taken by the government over which Patel had no control and that she be returned her advance amount.
Patel stated that she had placed an order for gold jewellery weighing 45 grams on October 27 in 2016. She had then paid Rs 20,000 in advance, promising to pay the remaining amount at the time of delivery after Diwali.
However, soon after Diwali on November 8, demonetization was announced, said Patel, making her unable to take delivery of the ornaments as she had run out of liquid cash and asked the jeweller to return the money which she had paid in advance. But, the jeweller refused to return the money.
Patel then approached the consumer forum seeking help in getting her money back along with compensation.
During the hearing of the case, the jewellery showroom argued that Patel wanted to make the remaining payment through demonetized notes to convert her black money into white. But as they were strictly following the government’s guidelines, they refused the banned notes and instead suffered making charges of Rs 29,250 on her behalf.
Jeweller further stated that Patel was even asked to make the remaining payment through cheque or demand draft, which she did not. Patel, however, refused the allegations in an affidavit.
The court too did not accept the arguments as the showroom did not have any evidence to support their claims that they suffered making charges. It held that the showroom is responsible for returning the advance payment and it illegally held back the money.