Assistant Engineer vs Om Parkash

THIS appeal assails the order of the District Forum, Ambala whereby the appellant has been directed to refund a sum of Rs. 40,690/- and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded for unnecessary harassment etc.

ON the 12th of December, 1990 Om . Parkash, complainant booked a tractor with the appellant-Corporation and paid an advance of Rs. 2,500/- therefor. The quoted price was Rs. 1,86,975/-. It was the respondent's case that in order of seniority of turn he was to be the first to receive the tractor from the appellant but despite repeated visits made for securing the delivery of the tractor, the same was not given. The allegation was that the appellants deliberately kept putting him off in order to unduly favour others. It was further pointed out that in anticipation of the delivery, the respondent had secured the sanction of a loan in his favour from the Allahabad Bank vide letter dated the 5th of February, 1991. It was not till nearly seven months thereafter that the delivery was made on the 21st of September, 1991 by which time the price of the tractor had escalated to Rs. 2,27,664/-. The respondent was compelled to pay the said amount and aggrieved thereby, he knocked at the door of the District Forum for the refund of the extra amount of Rs. 40,690/- with interest thereon as also compensation etc. In the written statement filed by the appellants the factum-of the tractor having been booked and that at that time the price of the same was rupees 1,86,975/- stands admitted. It was also admitted that the tractor was supplied as late as the 21st of September, 1991 when the price thereof had gone up to the aforementioned amount. The plea taken in defence was that in fact the respondent had been delaying to take the delivery of the tractor despite their requests because the loan applied for by him had not been sanctioned to him. It was the case that the appellants were in no way at fault and in fact had supplied the tractor to the complainant as soon as he showed his willingness to pay the prevalent price in the market. It is unnecessary to advert to the written statement of opposite party No. 2 since no relief was claimed against them.

In support of his case, the complainant-respondent himself stopped into the witness-box and placed on the record documents P.1 to P.6. In rebuttal, Shri Varinder Kumar Ahuja and Shri O.P. Kashyap appeared on behalf of the appellants.

THE District Forum in its exhaustive and considered order adverted in depth to the evidence and material on the record and arrived at a categoric finding that the appellants had indulged in an unfair trade practice by denying delivery to the respondent for a prolonged period in which a substantial escalation of price ensued which they were bound to refund. Consequently, the relief was granted in the terms noticed at the very outset. Mr. P.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellants basically placed reliance on Ext. P.2 dated the 12th of December, 1990 which bore a note that the prevailing price would be charged at the time of delivery. It was contended that because of this stipulation, the respondent could make no grievance for having been compelled to pay the Enhanced price. In the alternative it was the case that the appellants in fact had been keen to make delivery but the respondent was not willing to take the same because of the delay in the sanctioning of loan by the Allahabad Bank.

WE are unable to discover any merit in the submissions aforesaid. In a judgment of affirmance it is unnecessary to tread the same ground repetitively and it may perhaps be said at the outset that we are inclined to affirm the findings of the District Forum which could not be effectively assailed. The learned Counsel for the appellant's plea that because of the original stipulation in December, 1990, they could delay the delivery by nine months without adequate cause and still compel the payment of the prevailing price has to be only notified and rejected. It is common ground that the booking of the tractor by the respondent bore the seniority by turn and any unjustifiable delay over a period of 7 months would be a patent deficiency in the service with regard to the said booking. It cannot possibly be held that in such a situation, the appel lants were entitled to inordinately withhold the delivery to the respondent at their whim, and on the basis of the note in Ext. P.2 claim the prevailing price from the customers irrespective of the one which was contracted for at the time of booking. It is then significant to note that the sheetanchor of the appellant's case was that the respondent had not been sanctioned the bank loan and he was, therefore, procrastinating in taking delivery of the tractor. In support of the said plea a specious attempt was made at the appellate stage to show that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the respondent only on the 20th of September, 1991 and it was only thereafter that he was in a position to make the payment and take delivery. However, this has been given the lie direct by the certificate issued by the Allahabad Bank which in no certain terms states that the respondent was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,18,000/- only and informed about the same vide their letter No. 44/91/103, dated the 5th of February, 1991. It is, therefore, manifest that in fact the respondent was in a position to tender the price of the tractor to the appellants as soon as the delivery was made. It would appear that because the appellants failed or refused to do so, the respondent did not immediately avail the loan and incurr the burden of interest till delivery was offered to him. In the end of September, 1991 he secured disbursement of the loan from the bank and took delivery on the 21st of September, 1991. The plea sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellants indeed boom-rangs on their case because their would appear no earthly reason for the respondent to postpone the receiving of a loan already sanctioned in his favour on the 5th of February, 1991 except the fact that delivery of the tractor was being denied to him. To avoid repetition, it suffices in this context to say that we agree with and affirm the findings of the District Forum on this aspect in para 14 of the order. Lastly, reference may be made to a halfhearted attempt to place reliance on Ext. R. 1 which purported to be a letter written by the appellant's staff to the complainant on the 2nd of April, 1991. The District Forum in depth considered this document came to the conclusion that the authenticity thereof was in grave doubt and the same appears to have been prepared subsequently by some concerned official in order to avoid the liability arising out of the increase in the prices. Even on an independent appraisal we are inclined to hold so and therefore, it suffices to say that the reasoning and the findings of the District Forum in paras 10 to 12 are also hereby affirmed.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs, which are assessed at a modest sum of Rs. 300/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.