DIAMOND CEMENTS vs Rai Prexim India Private Ltd

IN this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,84,18,020.00.

COMPLAINANT has alleged that it required Bearings which needed to be replaced in its DG Sets installed for captive generation of power in case there was a failure of supply from the State Electricity Board. Orders were placed with the opposite party for 9 sets of Main Bearing Metal and 17 sets of Big End Metal Bearings for a sum of Rs. 11,40,000/ -. The Bearings were to be manufactured and developed by the opposite party as per the samples and drawings provided by the complainant which were to replace the existing Bearings in the DG Sets of the complainant. In short the allegation is that the Bearings manufactured by the opposite party were defective which resulted in the break down of the crank shaft and connecting rods and pistons. It is stated that the opposite party denied that there was any defect in the Bearings supplied by them but that the damage was caused due to crack in the connecting rod. The complaint on the face of it would require expert evidence to go into the technical nature of the Bearings and the damage, if any resulting from the defective Bearings and to what extent. For the total cost of the Main Bearing Metal and Big End Bearings for Rs. 13,28,020.00 complainant is claiming over Rs. 1,84,18,020/ -. Particulars of the reliefs claimed are as under : ''S. No. Particulars Amount in Rupees (i) For the cost of the Main Bearing Metal and Big End Bearings. 13,28,020.00 (ii) Crank Shaft 75,40,000.00 (iii) Connecting Rod L7 and R7 @ Rs. 12 Lakhs each 24,00,000.00 (iv) Piston L7 and R7 with Rings @ Rs. 8.25 Lakhs each 16,50,000.00 (v) Cost of dismantling and refitting 5,00,000.00 (vi) Consequential damages in terms of loss in product etc. 50,00,000.00 Total 1,84,18,020.00

Complainant has been unable to show any agreement under which opposite party was to render any service for correction of the Bearings or otherwise. Allegations do not raise any consumer dispute. The supply of the articles were made for commercial purpose. Damages claimed, however, are imaginary and without any relevance to the facts of the case. No document is there to support the claim for damages. The claim of Rs. 50.00 lakhs as a consequential damages is outrageous. It is unfortunate that simply because no Court -fee is payable such type of claims are advanced which have no basis. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 10,000/ - and shall be payable to legal aid. Such payment shall be made by way of a demand draft/crossed cheque drawn in the name of the ''NCDRC Bar Association (Legal Aid)'' and shall be deposited in the office of the NCDRC Bar Association, 5th Floor, ''A Wing, Janpath Bhavan, New Delhi.

WE , however, make it clear that if complainant has any remedy otherwise in Civil Court, this order will not come in its way and complainant may seek exclusion of time spent in these proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineer Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583. Complaint dismissed.