Mr. N.P. Singh, J.— 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 the District Forum, and dismissing the petition of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant against the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’).

2. The appellant booked a tractor with the respondent and deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500/- as an advance on 12.12.1990. The price of the tractor was quoted at Rs. 1,86,975/-. 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/-. In this process, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 40,690/- for no fault of his and due to the conduct and practice adopted by the respondent.

4. A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was filed on behalf of the appellant, before the District Forum. The District Forum, on consideration of the materials produced on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent intentionally did not deliver the tractors to the appellant, although the appellant was prepared to purchase the same. It was also held that the respondent supplied the tractor to others who were below the appellant in the list of booking and because of the delay, the appellant had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 40,690/-. A direction was given to the respondent to refund Rs. 40,690/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 21.9.1991. A compensation of Rs. 2,000/- was also directed to be paid to the appellant for the harassment and mental agony caused to him due to the unfair trade practice indulged by the respondent. The appeal filed on behaltof the respondent before the State Commission was dismissed, affirming the finding that because of the unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent, by delaying the delivery of the tractor to the appellant, the appellant had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 40,690/-.

5. The National Commission, however, held that the mere fact “that there has been delay in the delivery of the tractor, will not constitute “unfair trade practice’ under the definition of the said expression contained in the Consumer Protection Act”. The petition of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed. The National Commission did not point out in its order, as to why in the facts and circumstances of the case it shall riot constitute ‘unfair trade practice’.

6. The laws intended to protect consumers, as opposed to traders, are comparatively of recent developments. Because of general lack of information on the part of consumers, many trade practices may result in causing loss or damage to the consumers. It is well-known that many of the traders having advance information, or on speculation regarding to rise in the price of different articles, in order to avail the increase in the price, withhold the supply of different goods or articles to the consumers. In this process they cause loss or damage to consumers by making them to pay the excess price which they would not have been compelled to pay, if the goods or articles had been supplied in time. The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to save the consumer from such unfair conduct and practice of the traders also. On the materials produced, the District Forum, t