SAJJAN TEXTILES MILLS LTD. vs Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

THE complainant Company purchased a Generator Set from the opposite party for its use in the complainant''s textile mills. THE generator set was installed in the complainant''s premises in August, 1993. According to the complainant from the date of installation the generator was not functioning properly and this was reported to the opposite party. Even though the Engineers of the opposite party visited site they could not exactly find out what was the defect and they tried to make some rectification. THEre were major break-downs. Because of the power cut the complainant was much depending on the generator for production. But since the generator was not functioning for several months there was loss of production amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/-. At the time of break-downs a stand by generator was agreed to be given by the opposite party, but no such stand-by generator was given on account of which the production was seriously affected. THE complainant has also incurred a loss of Rs. 51,170/- towards expenses for purchase of spare parts for the defective generator set. Thus the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 22,00,000/- as loss of production and Rs. 51,170/- as loss for spare parts charges. On these grounds the complaint has been filed claiming, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation.

THE opposite party in its version contended that the generator set given by it to the complainant was not a defective one. THE Engineers of the opposite party after analysing the diesel generator found that the problems were, (1) due to the use of wrong engine oil leading to oxidation and burning of valves, (2) continuous over loading of the generator set over rated load resulting in excessive oxidation and reduced life of the engine valves, (3) and choking of the radiator and improper room ventilation resulting in higher operating temperatures and tripping of the engines, and these problems were due to the improper handling of the diesel generator set by the complainant, and, therefore, the Engineers of the opposite party advised the complainant to use proper lubricating oil and do proper cleaning of radiator and ventilation and to restrict the load to recommended values. It is further contended that the generator was used by the complainant for commercial purpose alone and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The further contention of the opposite party is that it was only in the case of manufacturing defect it agreed to provide a stand-by generator, but since no problem of manufacturing defect had arisen the question of providing a stand-by generator would not arise. The opposite party would deny that the generator was not working satisfactorily. Thus there was no question of any defective generator supplied or there was any deficiency in service and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The point for decision is whether the generator supplied by the opposite party was defective and whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.

POINT :-The case of the complainant is from the beginning of the installation of the generator set it was not functioning properly because of the defects in it, and it was informed to the opposite parties, and even though the opposite parties'' Engineers attended to it, they did not set right the defects property and on account of this the complainant has suffered heavy loss in production. It appears, according to the complainant, the opposite parties had to set right the defects and they failed to do so and hence they were deficient in service. As against this the opposite parties would contend that there were no defects in the generator, and if it had given any trouble it was because of improper maintenance especially non-using of proper quality of engine oil. Now, the relief sought for by the complainant is not for rectifying the alleged defects or replacement of the generator with a new one. Not even for providing a stand-by generator during the period of repair work having stated in the complaint that the opposite party has agreed to do so. But the prayer is to make good the alleged loss of Rs. 20,00,000/- that occurred due to the generator which according to the complainant is a defective one.

THE complainant has to prove that the generator is a defective one and the opposite party had to set right, but failed. And then the complainant has to prove that it had incurred the alleged loss. THEre are no documents on the basis of which the complainant can prove them. Obviously, elaborate recording of evidence is required. That cannot be done in this Commission which deals with the matters before it adopting summary procedure. In this view of the matter, giving liberty to the complainant to institute a civil case to ventilate its grievance, the complaint is dismissed. If a civil case is filed, we believe, the time taken in this proceeding will be considered for the purpose of limitation. Complaint dismissed.