NCL INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Petition, NCL Industries Ltd., Hyderabad, the Complainant have alleged that they were supplied with a defective power generating system run on diesel by M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. and, therefore, have claimed compensation of I Rs. 183.86 lakhs for repairs and losses due to stoppage and fall in production, for which purpose they had bought this system, from the opposite Party.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Kirloskar Oil Engine Ltd. the Opposite Party offered their product the Kirloskar Pielstic Power Plant, vide their letter of 8th August, 1989 wherein they also enclosed a questionaire for load study and agreed to have a discussion with the Complainant. Based on the information given in the brochure supplied by the Opposite Party and also taking into account their reputation, meetings were held between the Complainant and the Opposite Party from 29th September to 3rd October, 1989, the minutes of which were also drawn. In the minutes the agreed price for the machinery, installation charges and other terms of payment were also specified. The Complainant has mentioned that in point No. 6 of these minutes it was noted that, "Kirloskar has agreed to extend the warranty cover for 5000 operating or 12 months, other terms remaining the same as in the offer". The Complainant there-placed an order for commissioning of a Kirloskar Pielstic 6 PAGL 280 Engine developing 2400 HP at 1000 RPM along with an Alternator 2100 EVA 6.6. KV, 3 Phase, 4 Wire 50 HZ, 1000 RPM and other system auxiliaries. This order was placed on 5.10.1989. The system was commissioned on 9.4.1990. It is the case of the Complainant that from day one the DG set started causing problems leading to enormous n account of fall in production and amounts spent towards repairs. Thereupon, the Com-ant Company had been keeping the opposite Party informed of these defects, that their Engineers have been visiting the site and inspecting the system, rectifying the defects, times even replacing the defective parts. During all this period, when these repairs and replacements were being made by the opposite Party, the Engineers of the Complaint Company realised that there was some-basically wrong with the DG sets supplied by he Opposite Party and suggested guarantee for the crankshaft be obtained from them. These problems continued for a year and could not be set right. The Complainant kept on expressing his apprehension that there is some major problem in the set supplied implying that it was a defective machinery. Having failed to get its system right, the Complainant now has come up with the request that crankshaft and other related parts supplied by the Opposite Party to the Complainant be declared defective, as they were giving trouble right from day one, and further that Opposite Party be held liable for the deficiency in service and consequently pay a sum of Rs. 183.86 lakhs for repairs and losses.

(3.) WE have gone through the records of this case carefully and have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite Party. We are of the view that the transaction of purchase of the machinery involved in this case was for a commercial purpose and, the Complainant is not, therefore, a Consumer. The question of the supply of defective goods, based on a number of technical considerations, can be properly scrutinised only by a competent Civil Court.