PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW KNOWN AS PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD PSPCL THROUGH ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ENERGY AUDIT AND MMTS PSPCL PATIALA PUNJAB Vs. SHREE POLYPHASE METERS INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board now known as the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has filed this original complaint against M/s Shree Polyphase Meters (India) Pvt. Ltd. and three others as arrayed in the complaint alleging deficiency in service on their part arising out of breach of contracts with regard to repair and return of certain electrical equipments supplied by them and have sought a direction to be issued to Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to return the machines of the complainant-Corporation lying with them after removing the defects to their satisfaction or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.37.00 Lakhs with approximate sum of Rs.22.00 Lakhs subject to actual calculation as per clause 9 of the contract. In addition, the complainant-Corporation have prayed for a direction to award a compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs for harassment, negligence, compensatory cost and for delay in rectification of the defects because of which work of the complainant-Corporation of the checking meters has suffered badly.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant-Corporation is that in response to a tender floated by them for the supply of six sets of three-phase Phantom Load Set Type (Phantom Testing Machine) and four sets of Portable Solid State Watt Hour Reference Standard Meter Type (Watt Hour Testing Machine), the offer of opposite party no.1 as warranted by their manufacturer, M/s Landis And Gyr, Energy Management AG, Switzerland, opposite party no.4, was accepted and orders for supply were placed on them on the 13th of September, 1995. Each one of the Phantom Testing Machine was to cost Rs.5.50 Lakhs and the Watt Hour Testing Machine Rs.10.00 Lakhs. Thus, the total order placed amounted to Rs. 73.00 Lakhs. The machines as per the contract were required to be supplied within a period of 45 to 60 days, however, they were delivered later.

(3.) Even though the supplier i.e. opposite party no.1 had assured that the machines supplied were of very high quality and were also warranted by their manufacturer in Switzerland, to their surprise problems started cropping up in their functioning within few months of their being pressed into service.