Titagarh Industries Limited vs VOLTAMP ELECTRICAL PVT. LTD.

THE complainant has approached this Commission praying for a direction upon the O.P. for making immediate repair of the Furnace Transformer and for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lakhs for the loss incurred by it. Besides, the complainant has claimed refund of the sum of Rs. 2,55,836/-.

THE case of the complainant is that it placed an order on 30.1.1997 with the O.P. for repairing of its Crompton Make Furnace Transformer as per their quotation dated 14.1.1997. Clause 5 of the work order has made it clear that any work not covered by the Schedule shall have to be done after dismantling and reasonable cost as mutually agreed upon would be paid. After delivery of the transformer upon repair to the complainant on 19.6.1997, the same was put into operation in the presence of the representative of the O.P. But a major breakdown occurred at the time of operation. According to the complainant as per Clause 8 during the Warranty Period the O.P. is required to repair the transformer free of cost. THE complainant reported the matter to the O.P. pointing out unsatisfactory execution of the job of repairing the Furnace Transformer and asked them to take immediate action so that the Transformer can be put into operation. THE O.P. deputed an Engineer who observed in his report that the fault is of major nature. THE O.P. through their letter dated 28.6.1997 stated that if the breakdown is in the winding which they have not repaired then the repair by way of complete re-winding can be undertaken as per their terms and conditions quoted in the quotation. THEreafter, the complainant approached the O.P. several times to get the Transformer repaired but without any success. Accordingly, it was compelled to institute the present proceeding. The case is contested by the O.P. by filing written statement. It has been stated that on receipt of report of breakdown of the Transformer they deputed their Engineer who opened the Lid Cover of the Transformer and reported that the fault is major in nature and related to winding of other two phases which were not repaired and/or touched by them. They informed the complainant that complete investigation of the fault was not possible in view of huge size, weight and other environmental factors. They said that cost of total repairing of the transformer would involve more than Rs. 7.00 lakhs to Rs. 8.00 lakhs while the cost of new Transformer is around Rs. 25.00 lakhs. They stated that normally the Warranty is awarded only over patch work or part repair and not of complete equipment. They stated also that they had requested the complainant to send the transformer to their work-site but they did not respond. They have raised the question about the maintainability of the case on the ground that the dispute cannot be decided in a summary trial.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is not disputed that the Transformer is a old one and it needed repair. The O.P. submitted quotation through their letter dated 14.1.1997 wherein the details of work to be carried out as also the charges therefor have been specified. In pursuance of the said quotation the complainant issued work order dated 30.1.1997. In Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the work order it has been stipulated that any work not covered in the schedule which may come up after dismantling shall have to be done at a reasonable cost under mutual agreement. The warranty period is for a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of the Transformer by the complainant after repair. It is admitted that the said Transformer was repaired by the O.P. but it went out of order within a few days after it was commissioned. The O.P. deputed an Engineer to know the extent of damage to the Transformer after it was put into operation. According to the Engineer, the fault was a major one. Learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. has drawn our attention to the warranty clause in the quotation to submit that only one limb of the Transformer was warranted against defective materials and faulty workmanship for a period of 12 months from the date of final testing at their works for their repair. The learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. submits that the fault that occurred is of major in nature and related to winding of two other phases which were not repaired and/or touched by them. According to them, the cost of such repairing would involve more than Rs. 7/8 lakhs, which is not covered by the Warranty Clause. The contention of the O.P. is that only one limb of the Transformer was warranted against defective materials. The O.P. denies their responsibility in the matter on the ground that the other limbs of the Transformer having not been repaired by them and having burnt out during its operation, they are not responsible in any way. It is the case of the O.P. that they have requested the complainant to send the transformer to their work-site for inspection test and repair as per the terms and conditions of the warranty but the complainant did not respond. The case of the O.P. is, however, denied by the complainant. Admittedly, the Transformer was an old one and it was sent to the O.P. for repair. The items of work to be undertaken can be found in the quotation. It has been clearly stipulated that only one limb of the transformer is to be repaired. The complainant produced no paper to show that all the phases of the Transformer were required to be repaired by the O.P. Learned Counsel for the O.P. submits that since disputed questions of fact have arisen, this Commission should not adjudicate it. Unless elaborate evidence is adduced. He argues that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to quantify the loss allegedly suffered by it for non-functioning of the Transformer. He points out the fact that the complainant did not deliver the Transformer at their work-site to ascertain the extent of damage after it was put into operation. In our view, all these disputed questions of fact are such which cannot be determined in a summary proceeding. Therefore, we think that the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court to seek remedy if so advised which we hereby do. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the case with the observation that the complainant may seek remedy before Civil Court if so advised and if not otherwise barred. Complaint dismissed.