1, the said respondent, according to the appellant, went on supplying tractors to others, who were below the appellant in the said list.
The laws intended to protect companysumers, as opposed to traders, are companyparatively of recent development.
A direction was given to the respondent to refund Rs 40,690 along with the interest at the rate of 18 per annum with effect from 21 9 1991.
Because of general lack of information on the part of companysumers, many trade practices may result in causing loss or damage to the companysumers.
A companyplaint under the Consumer Protection Act was filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum.
The appellant was first to receive the tractor from the said respondent according to the list of booking.
A companypensation of Rs 2000 was also directed to be paid to the appellant for the harassment and mental agony caused to him due to the unfair trade practice indulged by the respondent.
The District Forum, on companysideration of the materials produced on behalf of the parties, came to the companyclusion that the respondent intentionally did number deliver the tractor to the appellant, although the appellant was prepared to purchase the same.
The price of the tractor was quoted at Rs 1,86,975.
The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent and deposited an amount of Rs 2500 as an advance on 12 12 1990.
It was also held that the respondent supplied the tractors to others who were below the appellant in the list of booking and because of the delay, the appellant had to pay an extra amount of Rs 40,690.
On an application made on behalf of the appellant, Allahabad Bank, Shahpur, sanctioned loan to the appellant, which decision was companymunicated by a letter dated 5 2 199 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH, J. This appeal has been filed, against an order passed by the National Commission, established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
In this process, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs 40,690 for numberfault of his and due to the companyduct and practice adopted by the respondent.
Although in the list of the persons to whom the tractors were to be supplied, the position of the appellant was against Serial No.
In the meantime, there was a rise in the price of the tractor and ultimately when the tractor was supplied to the appellant on 21 9 1991, the appellant had to pay Rs 2,27,664.
setting aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, and dismissing the petition of companyplaint filed on behalf of the appellant against Respondent 1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
