OM PRAKASH Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1994-4-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 12,1994

OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
Assistant Engineer Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ROHIT BAJAJ VS. ICICI BANK LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2008-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPANJALI FARM OWNERS VS. ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2012-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER RAJ VS. COMPETENT MOTORS CO PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL COMPLAINANT VS. COCA COLA COMPANY [LAWS(WBCDRC)-2010-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
GADE LAKSHMANA RAO VS. MAHALAKSHMI MOTORS PVT.LTD. [LAWS(APCDRC)-1998-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(NR)-1997-6-5] [FOLLOWED 0N]
SHANKERLAL L SACHDEV VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2012-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAM OVERSEAS PVT LTD VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(NCD)-1997-6-106] [REFERRED]
GADE LAKSHMANA RAO VS. MAHALAKSHMI MOTORS PVT LTD [LAWS(NCD)-1998-7-29] [REFERRED]
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED VS. D SUJANA [LAWS(NCD)-1999-4-70] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)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 thedistrict Forum, and dismissing the petition of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant against Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').
(2.)The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent and deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500. 00 as an advance on 12/12/1990. The price of the tractor was quoted at Rs. 1,86,975. 00. The appellant was first to receive the tractor from the said respondent according to the list of booking. On an application made on behalf of the appellant, Allahabad Bank, Shahpur, sanctioned loan to the appellant, which decision was communicated by a letter dated 5/2/1991.
(3.)Although in the list of the persons to whom the tractors were to be supplied, the position of the appellant was against Serial no. 1, the said respondent, according to the appellant, went on supplying tractors to others, who were below the appellant in the said list. 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. 00. In this process, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 40,690. 00 for no fault of his and due to the conduct and practice adopted by the respondent.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.