Mysore Cement Ltd. vs BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD.

THIS consumer complaint, claiming payment of Rs. 422.00 lacs from the Opposite party, Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (for short BHEL), Bhopal has been filed by Mysore Cement Ltd. owner of Diamond Cement, Narsingharh (MP).

IT has been averred in the complaint that the 4.2 MW Brown Bovery T.G. Set in its power plant developed high vibrations during May 1995. The opposite party, known for its expertise in the field of manufacturing and repair of sophisticated electrical equipments and turbines was approached for ascertaining the cause of such unusual high vibration and also to undertake repairs. On the advice of the representative of opposite party, who inspected the turbine, the rotor was sent to their workshop for repairs as also to undertake ''residual life assurance tests'' for the rotor and balancing at rated 3000 RPM speed. After mutual negotiations, the total job work which included balancing and subsequent alignment at factory premises was entrusted to the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. When the rotor, after repairs was assembled and Commissioned at factory premises in the presence of their engineers, it gave heavy vibrations even at low RPM.

THIS was brought to the notice of the opposite party who deputed a team of engineers under the leadership of their Additional General Manager (T&S), Shri N.K. Choudhary. Suspecting imbalance in the rotor to be the main cause of the vibrations, the team tried in -situ balancing at the plant site but despite a number of attempts, the rotor could not be balanced properly. On their advice, the complainant sent the rotor back to the workshop of the opposite party for further investigation.

IT has further been averred in the complaint that the opposite parties have wrongly claimed in their report dated 15.12.1995 that the rotor at their works was balanced at rated speed of 3000 RPM on 18.8.1995, at 10 and 9.85 microns level whereas even at 1000 RPM, it was found to be 600 microns in the complainant''s factory premises. It has also been alleged that while the opposite parties attribute the recurrence of the vibration to deficiency during assembly, the fact was that the balancing had not been, properly done at 3000 RPM in the workshop itself as would be evident from the fact that when the rotor was sent back to the opposite party''s workshop for the second time high vibrations were again noticed on their balancing machine at 1200 RPM. This apart, the complainant was flabbergasted to learn from the opposite party''s General Manager in October 1995 that while balancing in the balancing tunnel, the rotor broke into two pieces at a speed of Approx. 1000 RPM. Their engineers were therefore rushed to Bhopal who found that the rotor broke into two pieces due to failure of universal coupling of balancing machine. The coupling of balancing machine broke due to improper alignment giving a heavy twisting jerk on the rotor by the opposite party''s Engineers resulting in the breaking up the rotor into two pieces. It has been alleged in the complaint that damage to the rotor was due to the breakdown of the balancing machine coupling as a result of negligence and mishandling.

IT has further been averred in the complaint that realizing their mistake an assurance was given to the complainant through the opposite party''s Manager Shri Ganekar that BHEL would meet all the repair charges and assured that the rotor would be repaired to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite parties, however, resiled from this assurance subsequently and demanded a sum of Rs. 5.78 lacs which the complainant had to pay as they had no option but to accept it rather than suffering the loss of generation of power.: Even subsequent thereto, the opposite parties did not adhere to the original schedules to complete the work within 5 -6 months but delayed it to 18 months for the repair and dispatch of the rotor. Finally, oh receipt of the rotor after repair done by them, the complainant had assigned job work of assembling of the turbine to Mr. G.C. Jain of M/s. Sparks Engg. Enterprises, Delhi, who on visual examination of the rotor pointed out a number of defects and poor workmanship by the BHEL. They included inaccuracy and uneveness in the pitch and number of castellations, rough and inaccurate machining in the area of the oil guard, pitch was uneven and holes were accentric compared to the existing holes, rough machine surface etc. It was further pointed Out that the repair of the balance piston seals carrier and blades were not done meticulously.

IT has been stated that after overhauling, including fitting of turbine rotor and fitting of new balance piston seal carrier with seals supplied by the opposite party, the turbine had been put  on load after pre -commissioning checks and trial run. The turbine was under operation continuously from 2.9.1997 till the morning of 5.9.1997 with vibration level slightly high. The opposite parties had agreed to undertake perfect balancing at their works at 3000 RPM and if the vibration level were found high, then their team was to do balancing at complainant''s site at rated RPM of 3000.

THE opposite party was accordingly informed regarding the vibration level. Their representative visited the factory site and on their advice, the turbine was stopped on 5.9.1997 as. the technician wanted to fix reflection tape for tracing on line RPM. Even, thereafter when the turbine was restarted, heavy vibrations were found developing due to which the turbine was stopped. The turbine was opened in the presence of opposite party''s Officers and 10 rows of seal carriers, a number of defects i.e. broken seals rubbed off, brittle seal material and seal thickness being more than .3 mm as against 2 mm were noticed. This drastically reduced the axial clearance between the seals and the ribs of castellations in the balance piston. In other words, it was evident that due to opposite party''s poor workmanship, negligence and mishandling, the turbine could not be properly balanced and the vibrations could not be removed. The machine was completely damaged and even rendered unworkable.

IT has further been averred in the complaint that the services of the opposite parties were hired at a consideration of huge amount which had already been paid but the opposite parties have, quite contrary to the expectation, miserably failed to repair the machine. They have, on the other hand, damaged it further. They took very long time of 18 months and even, thereafter, could not make the turbine usable. They have been completely negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant and their claim of expertise was only a hoax. The complainant has alleged that they are entitled to the refund of 30.2 lakh paid for the repairs with interest @ 24% p.a. and further entitled to recover the price differential of Rs. 1.30 paise per unit of electricity between the price charged per unit by the M.P. Electricity Board and the generation cost of production per unit by the T.G. Set which has been quantified at Rs. 391.83 lakh.

ON notice being served on the opposite party -BHEL, they filed their written version denying the allegations and claim of the complainant.

APART from raising preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer, it has been stated in the reply that the complainant has concealed material facts e.g. that the repair of the T.G. Set involved various agencies and the opposite parties were given work of repairing the rotor/shaft only while all other critical work was handled by some other agency. A plea has also been taken that the T.G. Set was manufactured in the year 1936 and had already run its life. The complainant had failed to provide the log book of the T.G. Set to ascertain the past operational history of the machine. While BHEL does not give guarantee for repair jobs, the complainants have filed the present complaint in order to hide their faults in mishandling the proper assembly and other related work on the machine. The other plea advanced relates to damage during to and fro transportation of the machine between Narsinghgarh and Bhopal. The main thrust of their reply is that the T.G. Set in question was more than 60 years old whereas, the normal design life of T.G. Set is approx. 15 years. It was originally purchased by M/s - Empress Mills Ltd., Nagpur and thereafter sold to MPEB who in turn had sold it to the complainant -Company. T.G. Sethad been in use for more than twice its designed life span. It was specifically denied that the BHEL had agreed to carry out "Residual Life Assurance Work." According to them the scope of work entrusted was limited to repair of rotor and balancing. The work relating to assembly of rotor /alignment at site had been given to M/s. Sree Tech, Hyderabad by the complainant. This work was to be done under the supervision of M/s. Sparktek Consultants, New Delhi and BHEL was in no way involved with the work relating to assembly of rotor/alignment at site. The allegation that BHEL took considerable time to repair the rotor has also been denied. It has been stated that BHEL had been constantly in touch with the complainant and its Engineers with regard to the repair of the rotor. Delivery of the rotor was taken by the Engineer of the complainant after completing the testing of the rotor to their satisfaction. When the BHEL was informed about the problem after the rotor was assembled at the factory premises under the supervision of their consultant, Engineer of BHEL visited the site and noticed a number of short -comings committed during the assembly of the T.G. Set. They tried to correct the faults at site. Since, the problem persisted, the complainant was asked to send the T.G. Set to Bhopal for further check up and balancing. The opposite party - BHEL, however, have admitted that the rotor broke into two pieces at speed of 1000 RPM in October 1995, in their workshop but denied that it was due to failure of universal coupling of balancing machine. It has also been denied that the rotor broke due to improper alignment by the opposite patties. It has been stated that the rectification proposal there after was accepted by the complainant and there was no complaint about the expertise of the BHEL until then. According to the opposite parties, it is only to hide their negligence and faulty decision in handling over the assembly to people who. are not experts to handle this kind of sensitive work, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

BHEL has also denied that Shri Ghanekar, their Manager had given any assurance that BHEL would meet all the repair charges for the breaking of the rotor into two pieces. Since, the damage to the machinery was not due to the fault of the BHEL, the question of meeting the expenses of repair did not arise. It has further been denied that BHEL is responsible for delay to repair and dispatch of the rotor to the factory premises of the complainant. It was the complainant who took time in following the procedure. Lots of fixtures had to be made for holding the rotor. Further the stub shaft was to be supplied by the complainant which caused the delay. The stub shaft supplied was of poor quality for which the supplier had to be consulted which again caused some delay. Refuting all the other allegations made by the complainant, the opposite party - BHEL have denied any liability and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

THE complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite parties in which there is total denial of the averments made and plea of defence taken by the opposite parties. It has been reiterated that a total job work was entrusted to the opposite parties which inter alia included repair, testing, balancing, assembly and alignment at site. Mr. Sri Hari of M/s Sreetech, Hyderabad who was an ex -BHEL expert supervised the work of alignment. M/s Spark Engineering was not given the job of 4.2 MW T.G. Set; only one or two personnel were drafted to assist Mr. Sri Hari. It has been denied that many trials were taken at site after assembly. Claim of the opposite party that the machinery developed surface cracks during the transportation has been emphatically denied. There is no evidence to support the contention of the opposite parties that the rotor developed surface cracks during transportation. It was only an after -thought to somehow get out of the liability. Parties thereafter rendered their evidence. On behalf of the complainant, affidavits have been filed by GVS Reddy, Manager (F) of the complainant -Mysore Cement Ltd. and Sh. G.C. Jain of Spark Engineering Private Limited in which the allegations/ contentions made in the complaint have been reiterated and affirmed along with as many as 32 exhibits which are mostly communications exchanged between the parties. The opposite parties have filed the affidavit of Shri A.K. Zamindar, working as Sr. DGM with BHEL with a number of exhibits in support of their defence.

AT the time of final argument, learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the dispute in question related to the generator set of 4.2 MW; more specifically with regard to its rotor and gland casing. When, it was noticed that the T.G. Set had developed high vibration which was an indication of some defect in its running, the complainant approached the opposite party - BHEL who deputed their Engineer for inspection of the turbine so as to determine the specific faults in the machine. On their agreeing to undertake the task of repair, the rotor assembly was sent to Bhopal on 6.6.1995. After inspection at Bhopal on 11.6.1995, the defects in the turbine rotor were crystallized so as to enable the opposite parties to determine the scope of its work and the charges with regard to the same. An offer to undertake this repair work was first made in writing vide BHEL''s letter dated 22.6.1995 at a cost of Rs. 30,77,200 which after negotiations was brought down to Rs. 25 lakh as per BHEL''s letter dated 3.7.1995. The terms and conditions and scope of work as laid down in BHEL''s letter dated 22.6.1995 accordingly became the contract between the parties at a cost of Rs. 25 lakh.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has submitted that as per this contract, the job was to be completed by 31.7.1995 which was never accomplished and even the defective unfinished repair work took more than 18 months. The opposite parties vide their report dated 19/21.8.1995 wrongly claimed that rotor has been dynamically balanced at 3000 RPM within 10 microns. The report was prepared without associating the complainant. When the rotor was brought back to the factory premises of the complainant after the OP claimed that it has been repaired and was assembled with the turbine, the opposite parties were requested to depute their representative to be present at the trial run vide fax dated 7.9.1995. However, no official of the opposite party came on 8.9.1995 but they came subsequently on 19.9.1995. When the turbine was sought to be rolled at 3000 RPM on 28.9.1995, in the presence of the opposite party''s representative, heavy vibrations were again noticed. BHEL experts made number of attempts to balance the rotor but failed. They finally stated that heavy vibrations were because of incorrect assembly which was an excuse for defective repair of the rotor. The work of assembly had been entrusted to an expert agency whose competence in the field was well known. The defect, indeed, was in the defective repair and improper balancing of the rotor and that is why the officials of the opposite parties had agreed to take the rotor back for balancing to its workshop at Bhopal without any charges. This only goes to show that the opposite parties were aware of the heavy vibrations in the rotor on account of the inherent imbalance in the rotor which was the specific job assigned to them as per contract which had not been done properly. What, however, shocked the complainant is that when the rotor was taken back to their workshop at Bhopal and the opposite parties were carrying out its tests for the balancing of the rotor, it broke into two parts. It must have been as a result of a major negligent/default on part of their Engineers. The fact that they had ordered an enquiry into the matter, conclusively proves that the opposite parties were neither competent nor did they possess the skill to undertake such a job. A request made by the complainant to include its representative in the Committee which was to enquire into the breaking of the rotor shaft vide its letter dated 16.10.1995 was unreasonably declined on the flimsy ground of the enquiry being an internal affair which clearly showed that the opposite parties had something to hide. As apprehended the Committee of the opposite party vide their report dated 16.12.1995 falsely stated that the crack in the rotor journal had developed allegedly during the assembly at site when it was sent to the complainant in August, 1995. The Counsel contends that the rotor journal developed the alleged crack at the workshop of the complainant or else, the opposite parties would have never taken back the rotor again for balancing and would have refused to get the rotor balanced at its workshop at Bhopal. The complainant was being made a scapegoat for the direct fault of the opposite parties in causing a break in the rotor shaft whereby the rotor broke into two pieces at the shaft end. To top it all, the opposite parties had gone back from their assurance not to charge any money for the repair of the broken shaft, as a result of which the complainant had to bear an additional expenditure of Rs. 5,78,300 as he had no option but to agree to the same as he was suffering from a loss of production of electricity.

EVEN after this regrettable episode, things were not looking up. In their letter dated 3.6.1997,Exh.CWl/26, the opposite parties have admitted that the rotor is "Slow Speed Balanced" i.e. the rotor has not been balanced at 3000 RPM at their work and the balancing of the rotor at 3000 RPM within the prescribed vibration was to be done at the complainant''s factory as per the contract.

WHEN the rotor was again brought back to the factory premises and got the rotor assembled in turbine through its experts, the opposite parties were again requested to be at site to ensure that he desired 3000 RPM without vibration was achieved. A team of the Engineers from the side of the opposite parties arrived at the factory for checking the balancing of the rotor at 3000 RPM within the prescribed vibrations on 5.9.1997. However, despite their best efforts, they were not able to run the rotor at 3000 RPM within the prescribed vibration limit. Finding no other ground the blame the complainant, they again repeated the earlier alibi, the defect occurring on account of incorrect assembly by the complainant''s experts. It has been argued that the seals which were supplied by the opposite party and the fins which were fixed in the gland casing melted and caused the damage to the turbine rotor which Was brought on record by the complainant vide its letter dated 26.5.1997. The complainant had in fact enlisted various defects existing in the rotor even before rolling of the rotor for the first time after its receipt at site. Rather than honestly admitting its failure to repair the rotor properly so as to make it run at 3000 RPM within the prescribed vibration limit, the opposite parties have unfairly resorted to passing on the buck to the so -called defects in the assembly and further harping with respect to the water going into the turbine and calling that a system fault had occurred. However, the fact remains that steam is simultaneously caused to be supplied to both 4.2 MW turbine and 10 MW turbine and if the allegation would have been correct, then, the other 10 MW turbine should have also stopped working which clearly did not. That the opposite parties -BHEL either did not possess the skill or had neglected to properly attend to the job is obvious from the fact that complainant got the same rotor repaired from former BHEL Engineers and that too at a cost of Rs. 7,50,000 only, making the rotor run without vibrations at the rated speed of 3000 RPM. Finally, it has been contended that the entire bogey of the machine being very old and,, therefore, not able to produce the desired RPM within the prescribed vibration is only a misguided and false attempt to escape from its liability on account of having failed to perform their scope of the work. The complainant having paid a sum of Rs. 30,78,300 and having suffered huge loss on account of the non availability of cheaper electricity, the Counsel contends that he is entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs. 422 lakh.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand has contended that the complaint is totally misplaced inasmuch as the complainant has failed to produce the records/log book of the machine which, as has been stated in the report of Mr. B. Srihari produced by the complainant himself which states that T.G. Set was originally installed at Empress Mills Ltd., Nagpur in 1936. This was, thereafter, shifted to MPEB, Raipur in the year 1953 -54, the set was reinstalled at Diamond Cement in the year 1984 -85. Thus, the machine was more than 60 years old. Contending that the normal design life of a T.G. Set is approx. 15 years, the machine had already out lived its life/utility when the defect regarding heavy vibrations was noticed. The past history of the machine with regard to repair undertaken was not available with the complainant and they failed to furnish any details when asked for by the opposite parties. Under the circumstances, the opposite parties could only repair the damage/problem in the machinery as pointed out to them.

WITH regard to the scope of work entrusted to the opposite parties, the Counsel has contended; that as would be apparent from page 22 of the paper book, it was restricted to repair of only the turbine rotor and gland casing which amounted to only 10% of the total work required. The contention of the complainant that a turn key project including assembling and subsequent alignment at complainant''s factory was entrusted to the opposite parties is wholly exaggerated and is not based on evidence. Contending that the rotor after repair had been properly balanced at the rated speed of 3000 RPM in the workshop of the opposite parties, the Counsel contends that the same rotor when assembled and fitted into the machine of the complainant at its factory premises did not give 3000 RPM. This, according to the Learned Counsel, only proves that the machine is defective, as a result of which the desired RPM could not be achieved and there is no explanation as to why the same rotor achieves the RPM of 3000 in the workshop of the opposite parties. The complainant had collected the rotor after satisfying themselves which is further clear from para 14 of their complaint that the rotor was rotating satisfactorily for a continuous period of three days. Learned Counsel has further contended that the rotor was assembled a t their factory premises by the staff of the complainant under the technical supervision of their consultant. The assembly had not been done properly as a result of which a number of trial run taken at site did not prove successful. When the representative of BHEL reached the site, they pointed out a number of deficiencies in the assembly of the T.G. Set, which was the main cause of excessive vibration. Since, the problem still persisted, the representative asked the T.G. Set to be sent to Bhopal for further check -up and balancing, if required. It has been argued that contrary to the allegation of the complainant, the vibration was not because of any imbalance in the rotor but because of defective assembly at site.

ON the question of the rotor shaft breaking into two pieces, Learned Counsel has contended that the machinery had developed surface crack during the repeated transportation of the machinery from the factory premises to Bhopal. The allegation that the rotor broke into two pieces due to failure of universal coupling of balancing machine has been denied. It has also been denied that the said balancing machine broke due to improper alignment. Alleging that the complainant had chosen to hand over the assembly of the rotor to the turbine to people who were not expert to handle this kind of sensitive work, the Counsel contends, the complainant has faced this problem and the failure of the other agencies are now being attributed to BHEL. At no point of time was an assurance given by Shri Ghanekar that the damaged rotor would be repaired, free of cost to the full satisfaction of the complainant. What was assured was that BHEL would charge the bare minimum. It has further been contended that BHEL do not give guarantee on repair work and as damage was not due to the fault of the opposite parties, the question of meeting the expenses of repair by them did not arise. Contending further that there has been no deficiency whatsoever on part of BHEL to undertake the limited work assigned to it and further that there has been no delay or V part of BHEL as the rotor had been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant which was taken by them after being satisfied with the repair Work, no liability could be fastened on BHEL. The claim with regard to loss on account of higher tariffs for electricity paid to MPEB, cannot be sustained since it was a stand -by generator and the complainant cannot claim any loss on that count. He has, therefore, submitted that the complaint being devoid of any substance be dismissed.

WE have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties who had argued at length and also have perused the voluminous record of the case. The preliminary objection raised in the written version with regard to the complainant not being a ''consumer'' has not been pressed at the time of final argument, obviously as the OPs were to provide the service to repair the machinery of the complainant for a consideration and their role of a service provider could not be challenged. We, therefore, find that: Mainly the following points arise for consideration - (a) Whether the complainant had assigned total job work i.e. to say a total turn key project which apart from repairing the rotor/shaft included assembling and subsequent alignment of the rotor at factory premises of the complainant.

(b) If so, whether the work was carried out satisfactorily as per; and

(c) The relief entitled to the complainant / liability of the opposite party on account of any deficiency.

ON the question of whether a total turn key job was assigned to the BHEL, we find from the records that the repeated averments in the complaint, as well as in the rejoinder as also in the letter of Shri P. Sreenivasan, Executive Vice President of Diamond Cements addressed to Dr. RKD Shah, Chairman -cum -Managing Director of BHEL that a total job including assembling and subsequent alignment was entrusted to BHEL is not borne out from the evidence on record. In this regard, letter of BHEL dated 22.6.1995 (page 20 of the paper book) addressed to Shri P.P. Rao, G.M. (Power Plant), Diamond Cements clearly indicates the scope of work and the details of repairs to be undertaken along with the amount they would charge from the Diamond Cements. The scope of work stated therein is limited only to the repair of the rotor and gland casing. The annexure to this letter gives with elaborate details, the various components of works to be undertaken as a part of the repair work for the turbine rotor as also for gland casing. It also appears to us that the job contract was limited to the repair of the rotor and its balancing at 3000 RPM but did not include assembly and alignment of rotor at the site of the complainant because had that been so, the machine after repair, would have been transported by the BHEL under the supervision of their staff and undertaken the assembly at the factory site of the complainant themselves. It is clear from the records that the repaired rotor was brought by the representative of the complainant under their supervision to the factory site on 19.8.1995. It is also clear from the records that the alignment was started under the guidance of Mr. Sreehari, an engineer of M/s Sreetech, Hyderabad and had to be rechecked by Mr. Gupta of M/s. Spark Tech Consultants, New Delhi since the trial run after 500 RPM started giving vibrations. Engagement of these outside agencies for the job of alignment and assembly, clearly goes to show that the complainant had not assignment the total work to BHEL. That the representative/expert of BHEL subsequently arrived at the factory premises to assist the complainant does not make out or prove the contention of the complainant that complete turn key project was entrusted to BHEL. This issue, thus, is decided against the complainant and in favour of BHEL.

ON the question as to whether the BHEL had discharged its burden of satisfactorily rendering service by way of repair of the rotor, its balancing and the repair of gland casing, we find that the same has not been done satisfactorily. As pointed out by Shri G.C. Jain of M/s. Spark Tech Consultants, Delhi, a number of defects, even on visual examination of the rotor were noticed. They included inaccuracy in the job, rough and inaccurate machining in the area of the oil guard, large radius starting very close to the edge, with the result that the original oil guard could not be fitted. The pitch was uneven and holes when compared to the existing holes in the generator rotor, very rough surface were noticed. These defects were pointed out to the representative of BHEL by Mr. Jainand Mr. Srinivasanat Bhopal which were not rectified and as rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel for the complainant, they may have been the main cause to result in stress concentration. Similarly, inaccuracy in machining in the balance piston seal carrier was very rough, machine surfaces and loose joining male and female spigot between the over -speed governor. The blades were not properly attended to and no condition testing of the rotor had been carried out. The seals in the carrier were also of substandard quality and they had not only broken out but melted. The seal thickness was excessive being more than 3 mm as against maximum 2 mm which drastically reduced the axial clearance between the seals and the rib of castellations in the balance piston. These minute defects were pointed out by the expert of the complainant but were not attended to. These aspects have not been satisfactorily rebutted/explained.

WE also take note of the fact that even though the BHEL was not entrusted with the complete work of alignment and assembly of the rotor, their experts visited the factory site of the complainant when the rotor was being assembled by the consultant and expert engaged by the complainant, but they were not in a position to clearly identify the problem/defect in the process of alignment/assembly. Since, they claim to have repaired the rotor and if it had been balanced satisfactorily, it was also in their interest to have pointed out the exact flaws in the process of assembly. It appears that they also tried to do their best with regard to the alignment and assembly at site but failed to do so and, therefore, asked for the return of the rotor to their workshop at Bhopal. At this point it would be of relevance to refer to the report forwarded by BHEL to Sh. P. Sreenivasan of Diamond Cement purportedly containing the details of the repairs undertaken but sadly the same report reads more like an inspection report of a damaged rotor rather than describing the repairs undertaken; e.g., while their report at page 28 of the paper book states as: Repair of 4.2 MW turbine rotor; under the head I. Visual Examination, it states as under - Rotor bearing Identification No. 89778 Dl of above plant was Visually Inspected on 11.6.1995 and following findings were recorded.

Fine scoring marks are observed on TE Journal and thrust collar surfaces. At three places of both thrust collar fine dent marks are also noticed.

Balancing holes are found to have heavy rust all over and chattering marks at few places. Three balancing holes on each side have either partial or full balance weights.

Gland area at inlet to Curtis stage is observed to have grinding and chattering marks at its 50% length and at its l/3rd periphery showing uneven machining. The fins and their grooves are almost machined out.

Curtis wheel row 1 and 2: Erosion on outlet edges and few dent marks at inlet edges of blades of row 1 and 2 are observed. Dent at 4 places and pressing of about 16 shrouds at inlet of row 2 is noticed.

Sealing strips of gland situated at outlet to Curtis stage are found either partially bend, damages or broken.

Indication of fine rubbing is noticed on the blades of stages 1 to 19 located in between coupling hole position from hole No. 1 to 4 of rotor. About 5 Nos. blades of stage 1,68 Nos. of stage 19 are found to have fine rubbing. About 80 Nos. blades of stage 14 have fine rubbing marks.

Scales and deposits is seen on blade passages from stage 18 to 27. Where as light scale is observed on remaining blades.

Erosion of different intensity is noticed on blades of stages 21 to 27 on their inlet and outlet edges. Erosion of little greater intensity is seen on inlet edges of blades of stage 27. Brazing of lacing wires at few places blades of the above stages were found removed. About 15 Nos. blades of stage 27 are observed bent about 3 to 4 mm towards their inlet side.

Fine rubbing is noticed at outlet and castallations of at the periphery located in between coupling hole Nos. 1 to 4 of rotor. One dent mark on a collar near to GE side journal is seen.

GE side journal is found to have fine scoring on its surface and light depression at one place.

Poor surface finish on coupling holes and heavy dent marks at one place showing sign of heavy gripping of rotor flange out side diameter in lathe jaws are observed. Jacking impressions and hammer marks observed on coupling flange face.

A plain reading of this report only points out as to what defects were found on the rotor on Visual Examination but does not state as to what exact repair was done to set right the defects. Similarly, the second part of the report on Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Test states as under - The entire outer surface and accessible area of blades excluding blades of stages 6 to 19 which are non magnetic material, were subjected to Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Test. About 2 to 4 mm long cracks ivere observed on outlet edges of shrouds of Curtis stages CI and C2. These were found near the tenons of almost all the blades of stages C2 and intermittently at stage CI.

Remaining areas of the rotor were found to have no significant defects. Dye penetrant test was conducted on Rotor Journals and no relevant indications were noticed.

Here again it does not indicate as to what action was taken to repair the long cracks observed on the outlet edges. So is the case with regard to Metallography Examination. Thus, it is clear that BHEL was not only not clear as to what repairs were done on the rotor but had been very casual in reporting the matter to the client from whom it had demanded a huge sum of Rs. 25 lakh.

IT is, further, noteworthy that the certificate for balancing the turbine at 3000 RPM given by In charge of testing by BHEL available at page 40 of the paper book states that the rotor had been over speed tested at 120% of operating speed for a duration of 2 minutes. We are surprised that the rotor which was entrusted for being fully repaired and balanced was tested only for a period of two minutes and on that basis a certificate has been rendered which in our view is grossly inadequate. It appears that neither proper repair nor proper testing of the rotor was undertaken and the matter was treated in a very slip shod manner.

UNDER the circumstances,. we cannot but help drawing an inference that the BHEL experts were apprehensive of something deficient in the repair of the rotor and that is the reason why they wanted to have a second look at their workshop. That the BHEL has been negligent, is further proved from the fact that when the rotor was being balanced in their vacuum tunnel for the second time, it broke into two pieces. We are not at all inclined to accept the contention of BHEL that the breaking of the rotor shaft was because of any crack which developed during transportation. It may be pointed out here that BHEL had been shifting its stand on the cause of the break of the shaft. In para 8 of the reply to complaint they say that machinery developed surface crack during transportation by the complainant while their in -house enquiry committee states that based on the above observations, it is inferred that due to deficiencies left during assembly of rotor at site, high vibrations were noticed and might have developed crack in the rotor journal. During run at BHEL works, the rotor could not sustain the braking torque and failed leaving residual crack marks on the surface. It is, therefore, quite clear that BHEL was not quite sure as to what was the real cause of the breaking of the rotor shaft. Non -inclusion of a member of the complainant in the enquiry committee also supports the claim of ''scapegoatism'' as alleged by the complainant. We fail to understand as to why a public sector undertaking like the BHEL should have not agreed to associate a technical representative of the complainant in a fact finding enquiry, if it really wanted to ascertain the real cause of the breaking of rotor. To say the least, it is not expected from an organization like BHEL to resort to such flimsy excuse to hide their neglect/omission in the repair of the rotor shaft. BHEL had definitely failed to rise to the occasion to repair the rotor shaft satisfactorily as expected of them. Thus, we hold the opposite party - BHEL negligent/ deficient in the limited work entrusted to them by the complainant. The other contentions such as development of surface cracks and the TG set being very old and entrusting the work of assembling and alignment to other agencies; in our view do not have much merit for the simple reason that if the TG set had totally out lived its life and was not fit for being repaired, they should have not accepted the job work. This argument has to be treated as an afterthought since the job work was voluntarily undertaken after due inspection. The contention that surface cracks had developed during transportation has to be rejected since BHEL has not conducted any test to detect any such crack before subjecting the rotor to balancing in the vacuum tunnel on their machine. The contention with regard to supply of defective stub material will also not absolve the BHEL since it was on their recommendation that the material was purchased and supplied by the complainant. BHEL''s objection with regard to the other agency being engaged by the complainant for the alignment and assembly of the rotor does not carry conviction, since, the same outside agency had subsequently repaired the rotor, balanced it, aligned and assembled it which started giving satisfactory performance. Confidence

COMING to the question of compensation, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 422.03 lakh. A sum of Rs. 30.2 lakh has been claimed on account of payment made to the BHEL as charges for the repair work done by them. The balance amount of Rs. 391.83 lakh have been claimed on account of loss of generation of electricity and consequently excess payment made for a period of two years to MPEB. On this, we take note of the fact that the complainant has two T.G. Sets, one is 10 MW, Metropolitan Vickers Turbine and the other which is the subject matter of adjudication of 4.2 MW Brown Boveri Turbine T.G. Set. Nowhere, it has been contended that both the T.G. Sets are run by the complainant all the time to produce electricity to run their factory. In fact their complaint in para 4 states as under: That the complainant has installed a 14.2 MN capacity power plant at its cement factory at Narsinghgarh in District Damoh for generation of electricity to meet its requirement of short of supply of power, as the MP Electricity Board with which it has entered into a contract for supply of electricity, was unable to meet its demand due to power cuts and other restrictions imposed. Electricity is just like a raw material for manufacture of cement and the complainant is a bulk consumer of electricity any curtailment of its availability seriously affects the production.

THUS the main source of supply of electricity is from the MPEB.T.G. Sets are there as stand by facilities.'' May be they are pressed into service intermittently as and when there is insufficient supply from the MPEB or in times of break down/emergency; To allege loss on this account as if the T.G. Set was being run, day and night all through the year is not sustainable. No evidence has been adduced with regard to the payments made to the MPEB during the period, this T.G. Set was under repair and the payments made earlier thereto so as to arrive at the proper consideration of differential amount. We also find from the records that the T.G. Set was 60 years old at the time it was sent for repair and has perhaps out lived its life. Whatever service was being rendered by the machine was only a bonus to the company. However, since the old machine was subsequently got repaired - for a rather moderate expenditure of Rs. 7.5 lakh as compared to Rs. 30.2 lakh paid to the BHEL, we are of the view that the complainant would be entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 50 lakh which will include interest on the amount paid to BHEL by way of compensation. We order accordingly and direct the opposite party - BHEL to pay this amount to the complainant within a period of two months from today.