BALAJI AGENCIES And INDUSTRIES vs DUWURU GOPALA REDDY

THE opposite parties are the appellants in this appeal. THE respondent herein filed a complaint CD. No. 1388 of 1991 in the District Forum, Nellore for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs. 5,735.00 collected from the complainant by the opposite parties on 26.8.1991 in excess of the quotation price of Rs. 1,42,300.00.

BRIEFLY stated, the opposite parties are the dealers in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Tractor Division. The complainant wanted to purchase a tractor. The opposite party sent a quotation 2.4.1991 to the complainant stating that the price prevailing as on 2.4.1991 for the tractor was Rs. 1,42,300.00 On 9.8.1991, the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties that if the complainant takes the delivery of the tractor by 26.8.1991, the tractor will be delivered at the rate mentioned in the quotation dated 2.4.1991 and if it is not taken delivery by 2.4.1991, the price of the tractor will be increased by Rs. 7,000.00 According to the complainant, he made arrangements for payment of Rs. 1,42,300.00 by way of Demand Draft dated 19.18.1991 and handed over the demand draft to the opposite parties. When the complainant approached the opposite parties on 26.8.1991, the opposite parties insisted him to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,735.00 stating that the cost of the tractor has been increased to that amount totalling to Rs. 1,47,735.00. The complainant, having no other go, paid the said excess amount of Rs. 5,735.00, as demanded. Since, according to the complainant the opposite parties issued a letter on 9.8.1991 that excess amount will not be charged, if the tractor is taken delivery by 26.8.1991, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs. 5,735.00. 3.The case of the opposite parties is that the complainant expressed his intention to purchase Mahindra B-275 Model Tractor and the opposite party No. 2 issued a quotation to the complainant for Rs. 1,42,300.00. But the prices of all models of tractors were revised with effect from 1.7.1991, by which date, the price of Mahindra B-275 Model Tractor was increased by Rs. 5,054.00. Again, with effect from 25.7.1991, it was further increased by a sum of Rs. 887.00, in view of the Special Excise Duty increase, announced in the Union Budget of 1991-92. Thus, according to the opposite parties, there is an increase of Rs. 5,941.00. The complainant was issued another quotation on 31.7.1991 for Mahindra B-275 Model Tractor with farmer''s kit for Rs. 1,47,735.00. As the opposite party received information that there was possibility for increase in the price of all models of the tractors, they wrote a letter on 9.8.1991 to the complainant informing that there was likelihood of price increase and the complainant may avail the opportunity to purchase the tractor at the prevailing rates. According to them, the prevailing rate would mean that as informed to the complainant on 31.7.1991 and not the prevailing price on 2,4.1991. The complainant paid the enhanced amount of Rs. 5,735.00, being the balance that was to be paid on 26.8.91, and was given receipt for the same and the tractor was delivered on 26.8.91. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, the only question that arise for consideration before the District Forum was "whether the opposite parties have agreed to supply the tractor to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 1,42,300.00, that is, the quotation given by the opposite parties on 2.4.1991 or whether the complainant is liable to pay the cost of the tractor prevailing as on 31.7.1991, as mentioned by the opposite parties in the second invoice sent to the complainant? The District Forum held that the effect of the letter dated 9.8.1991 would show that if the payment is made by 26.8.1991 for the tractor in full, the opposite parties agreed to supply the tractor at the old rates. The old rates, according to the District Forum, was rate prevailing on the date of first invoice i.e. 2.4.1991 and not on the date of the second invoice i.e. 31.7.1991. It accordingly directed the refund of the enhanced amount. 5. In this appeal, it is submitted that the interpretation placed by the District Forum on the letter dated 9.8.1991 is erroneous. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is necessary to refer to the letter dated 9.8.1991. That was a letter written by the opposite parties to the complainant. By the said letter, the opposite parties informed all the persons, who booked the tractors, that the price of the tractor is likely to go up by the end of August, 1991 by a further sum of Rs. 7,000.00. Hence, for those who pay the amount before 26.8.1991, the tractors will be given at the old rates. The old rate mentioned in the letter was understood by the District Forum, as the rate prevailing on 2.4.1991. But it is to be seen that subsequent to the invoice dated 2.4.1991, the opposite parties have sent another quotation dated 31.7.1991, wherein it was mentioned that the price of the tractor B-275 model was Rs. 1,47,735.00. This was based on the invoice sent by Mahindra and Mahindra Limited wherein B-275 model tractor rate was increased with effect from 25.7.1991 to Rs. 1,45,070.83 without the farmers kit. In the quotation dated 31.7.1991, the farmers kit was included. Therefore, when the opposite parties wrote a letter on 9.8.1991 referring to the old price, it can only be the price prevailing prior to 9.8.1991. In view of the circular issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Linuted and also the quotation sent on 31.7.1991, it is clear that the price prevailing prior to 9.8.1991 was Rs. 1,47,735.00. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite parties rightly collected the amount of Rs. 1,47,735.00 and no excess amount was paid by the complainant. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. No costs. Appeal allowed.