SUNKARA VENKATADRI vs ANDHRA PRADESH PAPER MILLS LTD.

CASE under Section of 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds/affidavit filed herein the State Commissioner will be pleased to direct the respondent to receive the balance amount from the complainant and deliver the coles crane vehicle to him II grant costs of this complaint.

THIS case coming on for hearing, upon perusing the memorandum of grounds/affidavit field herein, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Venkatarayudu, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. M. Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following Order : - The complainant has submitted a tender on 4.4.1990 for purchase of one Coles Crane offering Rs. 72,999/- along with earnest money deposit of Rs. 2000/-. On 9.4.1990 he submitted another tender for the same vehicle at Rs. 81,999.99 ps. along with earnest money of Rs. 2,000/- on 16.4.1990. The complainant has asked to attend the office of the respondent i.e.. A.P. Paper Mills Limited, on 22.4.1990 for discussion. At the time of discussion, the complainant is prepared to pay a further sum of Rs. 1000/- more. The opposite party wrote a letter on 30.4.1990 that the offer of the complainant cannot be considered. Subsequently, the complainant wrote on 5.5.1990 that he would enhance the quotation to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite party on 8.5.90 asked the complainant to quote his irrevocable maximum rate before 14.5.1990. On 12.5.1990 the complainant informed the opposite party that his irrevocable maxim rate was Rs. 1,04,499/-. By a telegram dated 17.5.1990 the opposite party accepted the offer but mentioned that Earnest Money Deposit should be paid within 15 days. It was not clearly mentioned in the said letter whether the balance of the amount should be paid within that time or not anyhow, the complainant sent EMD of Rs. 2000/- on 27.5.90 with a letter requesting 20 days for paying the balance. Thereafter, on 9.6.90 the sale order was issued with a condition that the complainant should pay the balance of purchase money within 10 days. On receipt of the said sale order on 18.6.1990 the complainant again wrote a letter for twenty days time for payment of the balance. But the opposite party by telegram which reached the complainant on 21.6.90 asked him to pay the full amount on or before 28.6.1990. Although the complainant asked for time till 8.7.90 the same was not agreed by the opposite party.

Alleging that as the complainant is prepared to pay the amount within 20 days from the date of the receipt of sale from 18.6.1990 on which date he received the sale order, the refusal to extend time till 8.7.90, according to the complainant, is not justified and that therefore the action of refusal on the part of the opposite party to receive the balance amount and to deliver the vehicle is untenable the above complaint was field. Hence in the complaint, it is prayed : (a) that the respondent be directed to receive the balance amount from the complainant and deliver the Coles Crane vehicle to him; and (b) to grant costs of this complaint.

IN the counter the opposite party submitted that as the complainant did not pay the full amount before 18.6.1990 even inspite of intimation in that regard by telegram dt. 21.6.90 the opposite party is not bound to receive the balance of the amount and deliver the crane. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to take note of subsequent events that took place. According to the complainant''s Counsel the opposite party again called for tenders for sale of the same crane. Therefore, a legal notice was given on behalf of the complainant informing the opposite party that it is illegal to sell the crane as the Consumer Dispute Case is pending in this commission. It appears that in spite of the said notice, the opposite party proceeded further with the tenders. The complainant himself submitted the tender for the purpose of crane with necessary E.M.D. without prejudice to his contentions in the Consumer Dispute Case pending but it appears that his tender was not accepted.

THUS, it is seen, as on today the crane is not available with the opposite party as it was already sold to third parties who are not parties to this case. Therefore, no direction can be given to receive the balance amount and deliver the crane as claimed in the Consumer Dispute Case, since the main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has committed breach of contract and thereby the complainant suffered loss. On the question whether there is breach of contract, if that is so, what are the damages sufferred by the complainant cannot gone through in this C.D. as the relief claimed is only to receive the balance amount and deliver the crane. It is open to complainant to agitate his rights before the Civil Courts and claim appropriate damages for the breach of contract if any by the opposite party. It is submitted by the Counsel for the complainant that during the pendency of the C.D. he has sufferred some damages and loss. It is open to the complainant as and when he files a suit for damages to include claim for compensation if any he has suffered on account of the pendency of the C.D. Under these circumstances, the C.D. case is disposed of with an observation that the claimant can claim the loss if any he has suffered during the pendency of the C.D. case. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint disposed of.