UTKAL GALVANIZER LTD. vs TECHNOMAC ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

IN this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant is claiming Rs. 2,31,26,949/-, over and above the complainants seek a direction to the opposite parties to remove and cause to remove all deficiency and defects in the machinery supplied by the opposite parties and to ensure to make it functional to its fullest standard forthwith. Complainants are dealing in manufacturing of Poles, Towers, Fabrication Work for Power Station and the like. For carrying out its orders it required supply of certain machinery for which quotations of the opposite parties were accepted. It is alleged that the opposite parties acted contrary to the agreed terms given in the quotation as per letter dated 2.9.1989, which resulted in firstly remaining the machine idle, secondly complainant suffering losses, thirdly liability of interest on loans taken by the complainants from the Banks, and fourthly inability of the complainants to comply with the orders taken from different parties.

ON the face of it complaint appears to be barred by limitation as the matters pertain to the year 1989. Complainants, however, say that cause of action arose lastly on 3.10.1998 when opposite parties finally refused to provide adequate service required from them. This complaint was filed on 11.5.1999 and remained under objections for almost over three years. No steps were taken by the complainants earlier to remove the defects. As the narration of the complaint goes opposite parties took the stand that machineries supplied by it strictly according to specifications and any fault in manufacturing of Poles could not be attributed to the machineries supplied by the opposite parties and defects pointed out were from different sources. The complaint requires expert evidence to give technical details of the machinery, its functioning and the technicality involved in the manufacturing of the Poles and other items by the complainant. As to how the claim for damages had been made particulars are given as under : (i) Actual cost incurred in the Project/Plant Rs. 9,25,18,000.00 (ii) Add. Interest outstanding till 31.12.1998 Rs. 1,08,66,000.00 -------------------- Total Rs. 10,33,84,000.00 (iii) Damages due to non-commissioning of Plant Interest @ 21% from 18.9.1998 to 31.1.1999 Rs. 1,19,31,000.00 (iv) Liquidated damages @ 15% on interest of Rs. 1,19,31,000.00 Rs. 3,29,949.00 Total Rs. 1,22,60,949.00 - Thus the opposite party is liable to pay aforesaid damages which is totalled to Rs. 1,08,66,000/- + 1,19,31,000/- + 3,29,949/- = 2,31,26,949/- as on 31.1.1999 as well as further damages to be calculated at the same rate from 1.2.1999 till the full and final settlement of the entire dues."

ALL these would require a great deal of evidence apart from the fact that the claim made has no relevance to the facts of the case. It is not possible to decide such a matter in our summary jurisdiction.

WE , therefore, dismiss the complaint and relegate the complainants to go to Civil Court and in that eventuality to seek exclusion of time spent in these proceedings under Section 14 of Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, 1995 2 CPJ 1.