K.S. And CO. vs Economic Transport Organisation

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

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. 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.

Exhibits Al to All are marked by consent. The Opposite Party has not filed any documents. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE point for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and to what relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled. Point: The Complainant has placed an order with M/s. Escorts Ltd. for the manufacture and supply of a 8 ton capacity Hydraulic Mobile Crane. The Crane was manufactured at M/s. Escorts Ltd. Factory at Faridabad and it had to be transported from Faridabad to the Complainant''s work site at Kovilpatti. The Complainant has called for quotations from Transport Operators for transporting the Crane from Transport Operators for transporting the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti. The Opp. Party M/s. Economic Transport Organisation at Madurai has offered to transport the Crane for} Rs. 15,500/- net without loading and unloading charges under Ex. A1 communication, dated 17.9.92. Ex. A2 is the reply of the Complainant, dated 23/9/1992, under which the Complainant has accepted the Opposite Party''s offer to transport the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti at Rs. 15,500.00. subsequently, the Opposite Party is wriggled out of the contract on account of the communication from their Head Office questioning the Opposite Party Branch office at Madurai for agreeing to happen the Crane at Rs. 15,500/-. The Complainant had, therefore, requested M/s. Escorts Ltd. to make their own arrangements to transport the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti and M/s. Escorts Ltd. has engaged the services of the Opposite Party at Faridabad and transported the Crane at a cost of Rs. 27,025.00. The Consignor M/s. Escorts Ltd. has paid the freight charge of Rs. 27,025.00 in advance and the Complainant has given a Demand Draft for Rs. 27,025/to M/s. Escorts Ltd. under Ex. A7, dated 28/10/1992. The Crane has arrived at Kovilpatti on 21/10/1992. 4. The contention of the Opposite Party is that there was no concluded contract of transport. It is, further, contended that the Complainant did not give the real particulars about the machinery to be transported and hence the Opposite Party quoted a ledger amount. Both those contentions are untenable. The Complainant has invited quotations from the Transporters and the Opposite Party has, under Ex. Al, offered to transport the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti for a sum of Rs. 15,500/-. This is an offer made by the Opposite Party. The offer has been accepted by the Complainant under Ex. A2, dated 23.9.92. A concluded contract has come into force. It is futile on the part of the Opposite Party to contend that there was no concluded contract. The next contention is, the Complainant did not give full particulars about the machinery to be transported. In Ex. A1 communication, under which the Opposite Party has agreed to transport the machinery for Rs. 15,500/-. It has been clearly stated that the machinery is a 8 ton capacity Hydraulic Mobile Crane. There is, thus no suppression or misrepresentation of facts. The Opposite Party had full knowledge of facts and has offered to transport the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti for Rs. 15,500/- and the offer has been duly accepted by the Complainant. The Opposite Party, has, subsequently, wriggled out of the contract and has committed breach of promise. It is liable for the consequences thereof. There has, thus, been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

The Complainant had informed to pay Rs. 27,025/- for the transporter and the same has been paid by means of a Demand Draft to M/s. Escorts Ltd. under Ex. A7. The excess amount of Rs. 11,525/- paid by the Complainant has to be refunded to it by the Opposite Party.

The Complainant has claimed that if the Crane had arrived in time, before 30th September, 1992, it would have been able to gain an Income Tax rebate of 50%. Since the Opposite Party failed to transport the Crane within the time, the Complainant claims to have lost the benefit. This contention cannot be accepted. The offer of the Opposite Party to transport the Crane from Faridabad to Kovilpatti at Rs. 15,500/- has been accepted by the Complainant under Ex. A2, dated 20.9.92. It is only thereafter the Crane could be transported from Faridabad to Kovilpatti, which would normally take, even according to the Complainant, 7 to 8 days. The Crane could not have been delivered at the Complainant''s work site at Kovilpatti before 30.9.92, only when the Income Tax rebate will be possible. The claim that the Complainant has lost Income Tax benefit is not entertainable.

THE Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for loss of availability of the Crane, because of the delay and Rs. 20,000/- for mental strain and anxiety. THEre is no basis for the claim of loss, because of the delay. For mental Pain and anxiety, we award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. In the result, we order as follows: (1) The Opposite Party shall pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs. 11,525/with interest thereon at 18% from 28/10/1992 till payment. (2) The Opposite Party shall also pay the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as compensation for mental pain and agony, to the Complainant. (3) The Opposite Party shall also pay the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as costs to the Complainant.

Complaint allowed.