A R ENGINEERING Vs. MALU PETROCHEMICALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, which is a private limited company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956, in pursuance of a contract with HESCOM Ltd. , Hubli for reclamation of transformer oil, placed an order for supply of oil reclamation, filtration and dehydration plant, which petitioner accepted against sale consideration of Rs.6,80,000/-. Initially, part payment of Rs.3,00,000/- was made by respondent no.1 to petitioner, followed by residual payments. Allegedly in terms of agreement through petitioner was required to depute a mechanic along with plant for erection and commissioning of project at sight, mechanic was not deputed. However, respondent no.1 got the plant erected and moved petitioner for deputation of mechanic for testing plant. After the tests were conducted, reclaimed oil failed to test as per 335 standard. Mechanic deputed by petitioner informed petitioner about shortcomings in the plant. Since defects with filtration were beyond repairs, modified filter was inducted in equipment but that did not qualify to ISI standard. As despite long waiting no improvement could be brought in the equipment, complaint was filed with District Forum, which, on consideration of issues involved and also on pleadings of the parties, dismissed complaint. Matter was, however, remanded by State Commission in appeal and District Forum this time too reiterated dismissal of complaint. State Commission now in appeal on consideration of correspondences, that transpired, putting reliance on finding of mechanic of petitioner that machine was beyond repair, finding petitioner deficient in service directed them to pay Rs.5,41,680/- being the value of equipment to respondent no.1 along with interest @ 6% per annum and respondent no.1 in his turn was directed to restore machine in question to petitioner. Cost of Rs.5000/- too was awarded by State Commission.

(2.) Through respondent no.2 was also arrayed as opposite party no.2 in proceedings, complaint as against them was dismissed by State Commission, in view of their defence that they were not agent of opposite party no.1 and hence in no way answerable or liable for any defect in equipment purchased by respondent no.1 from petitioner.

(3.) Though petitioner denied to have supplied equipment in question to respondent no.1 to wriggle out of financial implication, State Commission rightly on consideration of payment of sale consideration of equipment to petitioner rejected their defence. A number of defects are shown to have been noticed in equipment and to crown all none else but their own mechanic had found equipment to be beyond repairs and hence finding of State Commission cannot be said to be against weight of mass of evidence.