ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order of the District Forum, Ambala whereby the appellant has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.40,690/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded for unnecessary harassment etc.

(2.) On the 12th of December, 1990 Om. Parkash, complainant booked a tractor with the appellant-Corporation and paid an advance of Rs.2,500/- therefor. The quoted price was Rs.1,86,975/-. It was the respondent's case that in order of seniority of turn he was to be the first to receive the tractor from the appellant but despite repeated visits made for securing the delivery of the tractor, the same was not given. The allegation was that the appellants deliberately kept putting him off in order to unduly favour others. It was further pointed out that in anticipation of the delivery, the respondent had secured the sanction of a loan in his favour from the Allahabad Bank vide letter dated the 5th of February, 1991. It was not till nearly seven months thereafter that the delivery was made on the 21st of September, 1991 by which time the price of the tractor had escalated to Rs.2,27,664/-. The respondent was compelled to pay the said amount and aggrieved thereby, he knocked at the door of the District Forum for the refund of the extra amount of Rs.40,690/- with interest thereon as also compensation etc.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the appellants the factum-of the tractor having been booked and that at that time the price of the same was rupees 1,86,975/- stands admitted. It was also admitted that the tractor was supplied as late as the 21st of September, 1991 when the price thereof had gone up to the aforementioned amount. The plea taken in defence was that in fact the respondent had been delaying to take the delivery of the tractor despite their requests because the loan applied for by him had not been sanctioned to him. It was the case that the appellants were in no way at fault and in fact had supplied the tractor to the complainant as soon as he showed his willingness to pay the prevalent price in the market. It is unnecessary to advert to the written statement of opposite party No.2 since no relief was claimed against them.