K S AND CO Vs. ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The Complainant placed an order with M/s. Escorts Ltd. , Madras for the manufacture and supply of a 8 ton capacity Hydraulic Mobile Crane. The Complainant called for quotations for transporting the Crane from the factory at Faridabad to the Complainants work site at Kovilpatti in Tamil Nadu. The Opposite Party offered to transport the above Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti for Rs.15,500/- net without loading and unloading charges. The Complainant accepted the offer and placed order with the Opposite Party on 23.9.92 to transport the Crane It seems that the Opposite Party's office at Faridabad wrote to the Opposite Party's branch at Madurai questioning the rate. Consequently, the Opposite Party did not prefer to perform the contract. The Complainant received a telex message from M/s. Escorts on 1.10.92 informing that the Crane was lying ready at their factory for the last 6 days asked the Complainant to arrange for transport. The Complainant was also informed that their plant would be closed for 5 days and the matter was urgent. The Complainant had, therefore, no other alternative, but to request M/s. Escorts Ltd. to arrange for the transport of the Crane through their regular transporters and agreed to bear the actual freight charges of Rs.25,000.00. M/s. Escorts Ltd. despatched the Crane through the Opposite Party's Organisation and claimed transport charge of Rs.27,025.00. The Crane arrived at Kovilpatti on 21/10/1992. The charges were paid in advance by M/s. Escorts Ltd. and the amount was paid by the Complainant by Demand Draft for Rs.27,025.00 in favour of M/s. Escorts Ltd. It is the case of the Complainant that if the Crane had been delivered in time, it would have earned an Income Tax rebate of 25%. The Complainant is also entitled to the difference in the payment of freight charge of Rs.11,525.00. It also claims Rs.60,000.00 for loss of business.

(3.) The Opposite Party contended that there was no concluded contract between the parties. The Complainant did not give correct information about the machinery and hence the rate given by the Opposite Party was a mistake. This is machinery which needed a special lorry. Hence, it withdrew the offer and requested the Complainant to make their own arrangement. The Consignor at Faridabad engaged the Opposite Party for the transport and the Opposite Party transported the machinery safely and delivered it to the complainant at Kovilpatti and there is no deficiency in service. The claim for loss of Income Tax benefit is denied and the loss of business is also disputed.