The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent and deposited an amount of Rs.
1, the said respondent, according to the appellant, went on supplying tractors to others, who were below the appellant in the said list.
40,690/ .
In this process, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs.
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.
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.
A direction was given to the respondent to refund Rs.
The appellant was first to receive the tractor from the said respondent according to the list of booking.
2,27, 664/ .
2,000/ 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.
Although in the list of the persons to whom the tractors were to be supplied, the position of the appellant was against Serial No.
The price of the tractor was quoted at Rs.
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.
A companyplaint under the Consumer Protection Act was filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum.
1,86,975/ .
2,500/ as an advance on 12.12.1990.
40,690/ for numberfault of his and due to the companyduct and practice adopted by the respondent.
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 5.2.1991.
40,690/ along with the interest at the rate of 18 per annum with effect from 21.9.1991.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
P. Singh, J. This appeal has been filed, against an order passed by the National Commission, established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 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 the respondent No.
