Jewelry was ordered to return RS 20,000 Money Face Paid four years ago – News2IN
Surat

Jewelry was ordered to return RS 20,000 Money Face Paid four years ago

Jewelry was ordered to return RS 20,000 Money Face Paid four years ago
Written by news2in

Letter: A woman who lives in Pal, who cannot make a full payment for the jewelry she has ordered because demonetization, will receive a downward advance refund that she has made four years ago to leading jewelry at the Parle Point.
The Consumer Court in a recent letter told jewelry to return a number of Rs 20,000 along with a 7% interest to complain from Darshana Patel as a currency note prohibited by the central government.
It also ordered Rs 5,000 to be paid to him as compensation.
Upholding Patel’s argument that he could not pay the remaining number of Rs 1.37 lakh because the government’s policy, the court stated that demonetization was a policy decision taken by the government where Patel did not have control and that he would return the number.
Patel stated that he had ordered a golden jeweler with a weight of 45 grams on October 27, 2016.
He then paid Rs 20,000 in advance, promised to pay the remaining amount at the time of delivery after Diwali.
However, as soon as Diwali on November 8, demonetization was announced, said Patel, made him unable to accept sending ornaments because he had run out of liquid cash and asked for jewelry to return the money he had paid before.
But, the jewelry refused to return the money.
Patel then approached the consumer forum that was seeking help in getting the money back along with compensation.
During the hearing of this case, the jewelry showroom argued that Patel wanted to make a payment remaining through the demonnetization note to turn his black money to white.
But because they strictly followed government guidelines, they rejected notes that were prohibited and even suffered to submit charges of Rs 29,250 in his name.
Further jewelry stated that Patel was even asked to do the remaining payment through a check or draft request, which he did not do.
Patel, however, rejected the allegations in a written statement.
The court also did not accept the argument because the showroom had no evidence to support their claims that they suffered to submit charges.
Held that the showroom is responsible for returning payments in advance and illegally hold money.

About the author

news2in