V. Balakrishana Eradi, J. ( 1 ) -THIS complaint has been preferred by tbe Mumbai Grahak Panebayat, a registered Voluntary Consumer Organisation having its office in Bombay The Opposite Party M/s. Lohia Machines Limited is a company engaged in the manufacture of two wheeler scooters having the brand name Vespa XE Applications had been invited by the company from persons interested in the purchase of scooters and the stipulation was that at the time of booking and registration an advance deposit of Rs 500. 00 was to be made by each customer which was later to be adjusted against the total price payable by him at the time of the delivery. As per the conditions notified by the company, the advance deposit of Rs 500. 00 was to cany simple interest of percent per annum but in the event of cancellation of the booking by the applicant, the money deposited by way of advance was to be refunded by the company with only interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum thare was a further conection that in the case of cancellation of the booking within the first six months from the date of the close of booking, no interest shall be payable. However, it was clearly stipulated that the refund of the deposit, amout shall be made by the company by a demand draft to be posted to the customer wish in to days from the date of receipt of the canceltation advice The petitioner has produced as Annexure i to the petition, a photostat copy of the rntimation sent by the company to the customers at the time of booking which contains she terms and conditions relating to the transaction. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the complaint - petition that on account of long delays in deliveries and the absence of any immediate prospect of getting the scooter many consumers cancelled thr bookings and applied for refund of their advance deposit amounts along with the interest due thereon. A list containing the particulars of the names, addresses, registration numbers and dates of cancellation etc. of 934 persons who have so far cancelled their bookings for the scooters with the respondent company has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure ii to the petition. A list containing the particulars of the names, addresses, registration numbers and dates of cancellation etc. of 934 persons who have so far cancelled their bookings for the scooters with the respondent company has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure ii to the petition. The petitioner has stated that in spite of repeated requests made by these parsons to the company, no refunds of the advance deposit amounts have- been made to them by the company even after long delays ranging upto three years despite due intimetion or cancellation of bookings having been given to the company. The petitioner contends that the Opposite Party has been illegally utilising the huge sums of money aggregating to several crores belonging to such consumers for the purpose of their business and thereby indulging in unjust, unfair and illegal enrichment. It is urged by the petitioner that a clear case of deficiency in service established on the part of the Opposite Party and hence the aggrieved persons whose names and addresses are set out in Annexure ii are entitled to be granted by this Commission reliefs by way of an order directing the respondent company to immediately refund to them the amounts of deposits together with interest at such rate as may be fixed by this Commission and also compensation for the menial agony and loss suffered by them, which according to the petitooner should be fixed in respect of each aggrieved person at Rs 100. 00 per month of delay commenting from the expiry of three months after the cancellation of their orders. 00 per month of delay commenting from the expiry of three months after the cancellation of their orders. ( 3 ) THE complaint has further stated that in addition to the persons whose particulars are enumerated in Annexure ii there are many thousands ot others all over India who are similaly situated and whose deposit amounts are being wrongfully withheld by the company in spite of their having cancelled their bookings long ago, Hence it has been prayed that this petition should bs treated as a public interest petition filed on behalf of all such persons as well and that a general order should be passed against the company granting the reliefs afore mentioned in f. ivour of a!l such similarly situated persons also ( 4 ) THOUGH notice of this petition had been duly served on the respondent company, no written statement contradicting the avermeats contained in the pstition has ben filed on its behalf Instead, the company has adopted the strange and improper procedure of addressing two letters dated 20th August, 1990 and 1st September, 1990 recpectively to the Registrar of this Commission furnishing Informaltion to the effect that out of the 934 persons mentioned in Annexure ii , of the petition refund pay orders have since been issued by ths company to 515 persons is and that out of the remaining in respect of 114 persons refund pay orders had already been issued before the receipt of the notice of thee notice by the company of this complint petition it is further mentioned in those letters that in respect of 6 persons, refund pay orders are in the process of being issued since thay have subsequeatly furnished to the company their correct reference numbers and that so far as the remaining 209 persons, whose names are mentioned in Annexure ii are Concerned the company is experiencing difficullty in issuing refund pay orders because their correct reference numbers (Area Code/delivery Number) have not been indicated in Annexure ii so the petiti on. ( 5 ) SHRI P. K. Manohar, Advocte appeared before us today on behalf of the respondent company and requested for the grant of a short adjourn- f mint to enable him to file a counter-affidavit. ( 5 ) SHRI P. K. Manohar, Advocte appeared before us today on behalf of the respondent company and requested for the grant of a short adjourn- f mint to enable him to file a counter-affidavit. However, having regard to the nature of the grievance put forward by the complaint-Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, and the long period of raiting that the persons represented by the complainant have already undergone in the matter of getting back their deposit amounts and the further fact that the respondent company has set out in its two letters addressed to the Registrar of this commission the factual situation that obtains in regard to the mankind of refund of deposits to the persons mentioned in Annexure ii , we did not consider it necessary to adjourn the case to await the filing of a formal counter-affidavit incorporating the details already furnished in the two letters referred to above. Hence we decline to grant the request for a postponement of the hearing of the case. ( 6 ) WE find little justification for the failure on the part of the company to discharge its obligation of refunding to the persons who had cancelled their bookings, the amounts of their deposits together with the stipulated interest immediately after expiry of the period or 60 days from the date of receipt of the cancellation advice as bad been solemnly undertaken by them in paragraph 4 of Annexure i . Hence a clear case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Party for which the consumers represented by the complainant arc entitled to be reasonably compensated. ( 7 ) AFTER taking into account all relevant factors, we consider it would be reasonable to direct the respondent company to pay to all the persons figuring in Annexure ii , interest at 18 per cent on the amounts of deposits wrongfully retained by the company beyond by the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the cancellation advice. In other words, the company shall pay to each of the persons figuring in Annexure ii in respect of whom they have defaulted to refund the advance deposit amount within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the cancellation advice, interest on the amount of advance deposit at 18 per cent per annum for the period between the date of expiry of the 60 days period mentioned above and the date of actual repayment of the advance deposit amount. We make it clear that this direction regarding payment of interest will apply even in respect of those persons included in Annexure ii to whom the company has despatched refund payment orders sebsequent to the receipt of notice of this petition. In regard to the persons whose correct reference numbers have not been furnished in Annexure ii , the complaint - Mumbai Grahak Panchayat shall furnish such particulars to thecompany within one month from today and refunds shall be made to them of the deposit amounts together with interest at the rate afore-mentioned within a period of not exceeding three months therefter. We have considered it reasonable to award interest at the rate of 18 per cent since we find that the company has stipulated the said rate of interest as payable by the customers who have executed indemnity bonds and obtained duplicate pay orders in the event of their subsequently receiving the original pay orders despatched earlier by the company. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, the award Of interest at 18 per cent would constitute sufficient compensation for the inconveience, anguish etc. , to which the consumers represented by the complainant were subjected on account of the delay and default on the part of the respondent company in promptly making the refund payment. We are accordingly not inclined to grant the prayer of the complainant that we should award Rs. 100. 00 per month as compensation to the such aggrieved consumers. ( 9 ) TAKING into account the enormous expenditure which the complainant has had to incur in collecting all the data concerning the 934 persons represented by the complainant and preparing the complaint petition with its annexures, we direct that the respondent company shall pay the complainant Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, a sum of Rs. 5000. 00 by way of costs of this petition. 5000. 00 by way of costs of this petition. ( 10 ) COMING now to the complainant s prayer that the same relief should be extended also to all other unascertained persons also who are similarly situated by treating this as a public interest petition, we think that the proper course to adopt is to direct the respondent company to furnish to this commission an axhaustive list containing the names and particulars of all the persons to whom refund of deposit amounts remain outstanding as unpaid despite the company having duly received from them advice or cancellation of their bookings for the scooter. The list to be filed by the respondent company should exhaustively cover all cases of customers belonging to all the States in India to whom refunds of advance deposits have accured due and are remaining unpaidtdespite the lapse of 60 days from the date of receipt by the company of their cancellation advice. We direct the respondent company to file such a complete list before this commission within a period of six weeks from today. Post this petition for further hearing after six weeks. Miscellaneous Pettion No. 33 of 1990 ( 11 ) THIS petition is permitted to be withdrawn in view of the averments contained in the petitioner s letter dated 10. 9. 1990 seeking permission for such withdrawal.