OM PRAKASH versus ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 12-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES 
CORPORATION AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, N.P. SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and MRTP Act, 1969--Complaint as 
regards "unfair trade practice" resulting in loss and damages-Whether inten-
tionally delayed delievery of tractor by the respondent to the appellant con-
C 
stitutes "unfair trade practice'· under Section 36-A (amended by Act 58 of 1991 , 
w.e.f 27.9.1991) of MRTP Act, 1969, read with section 2(r) of the Consumer 
Protection Act 1986-IHtether stipulation in the agreement that consumer 
shall pay to the respondent the price prevailing at the time of delivery is 
material. 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : Section 2(i)(c)(iii), 2(i)(g) and 
2( 1 )( o )-Complaint in regard to delivery of tractor intentionally delayed by 
the respondent-Whether constitutes 
1'deficienncy in service
11
• 
D 
The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent on 12.12.90. The E 
price of the tractor was quoted at Rs. 1,86,975. Although the appellant was 
placed first in the list of persons who had booked tractors, the respondent 
postponed the delivery to the appellant while went on supplying to others. 
who were below the appellant in the said list. In the meanwhile, there was a 
rise in the price of tractor and ultimately when the tractor was supplied to 
the appellant on 21.9.91 the appellant had to pay a higher price, that is, F 
R•.2,27,664. In this process, the appellant had suffered a loss of Rs.40,690. 
On a complaint tiled by the appellant under the Consumer Protec-
tion Act, 1986, the District Forum held that the respondent intentionally 
did not deliver the tractor to the appellant which amounts to "unfair trade 
practice". Hence a direction was given to the respondent to refnnd Rs. 40, G 
690 along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum with effect 
from 21.9.91. Compensation of Rs. 2,000 was also directed to be paid to 
the appellant by the respondent. An appeal by the respondent was dis-
missed by the State Commission but a second appeal by the respondent 
before the National Commission was allowed on the ground that the mere H 
463 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A · fact that there has been delay in the delivery of tractor will not constitute 
'unfair trade practice' under the definition of the said expression con-
tained in the Consumer Protection Act. The statutory appeal has been 
preferred by the consnmer. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Amended Section 36-A of the MRTP Act 1969, which 
included within the definition of "unfair trade practice" even unfair 
method or unfair or deceptive practice adopted while promoting sales and 
snpplying goods, came into force with effect from 27.7.91. Before the said 
C amendment in Section 36-A, prima facie none of the practices specified in 
sub-section (1) to sob-section (5) of Section 36-A, would have covered a 
case like the present one, that is, intentionally delaying the supply of goods 
or articles booked by the consumer, according to the turn fixed, oecause 
of which the consnmer suffered Joss or damage by a rise of the price in 
the mean time. The condnct and the practice adopted by the respondent, 
D that is, making delivery of tractors oc pick and choose basis ignoring the 
appellant though he was at the top in the list of persons who had booked 
tractors with the respondent, shall not fall under sub-section (5) of 
Section 36-A of the MRTP AcL [468-D-E, 469-A] 
' 
1.2. After the intorduction of the aforesaid amendment, which 
E provides that the 'unfair trade practice' shall cover 'any unfair method 
or unfair or deceptive practice' adopted by a trader vis-a-vis the con-
sumer, the conduct and practice intentionally adopted by the respondent 
in not making delivery of the tractor to the appellant because of which he 
had suffered loss, shall certainly deem to be an 'unfair trade practice' 
F within the meaning of Section 36-A of the MRTP Act. [p.469-B] 
1.3. The appellant booked with the respondent for the supply of 
\ 
tractor on 12.12.90. The respondent supplied the said tractor 21.9.91, that 
is, prior to the introduction of the amendment in Section 36-A, whereby 
the expression 'adopts any unfair methods or unfair or deceptive practice' 
G 
were introduced which came into force with effect from 27.9.91. Therefore, 
the unfair method or unfair practice adopted by the respondent between 
12.12.90 and 21.9.91
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.