FUEPROS Vs. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by M/s. Fuepros is directed against Karnatka State Financial Corporation, M/s. Indian Institute of Technology, M/s. Bio-mass Energy Systems (P) Ltd. and M/s. Spectrum Unitop (Pvt.) Ltd.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail for the view which we have already taken and are now taking by this order. Briefly, the complainant alleged that he came across in 1982 a notification issued by I.I.T., second opposite party, in respect of the machinery and the technical know-how designed and developed by them in the manufacture of "Smokeless Briquetted Fuel" from out of agricultural waste, that the complainant undertook venturing the project after getting the letter and literature regarding the approved technology and the economical and commercial viability of the project from the second opposite party, that the machinery relating to the project was manufactured by the third opposite party and that second opposite party advised the complainant to purchase the machinery from the third opposite party. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the first opposite party seeking financial assistance for installation and erection of the machinery and the sanctions were duly granted by the first opposite party and after availing the financial assistance the complainant approached the third opposite party for the supply of machinery, the installation, erection of the unit on the production side and commissioning. It is then alleged that after installation and erection of the unit on the production side, the complainant was not able to make any headway because of the non-commissioning of the unit by the third opposite party in accordance with the contract as also because of defective plant and technology and the project being non-viable economically. The grievance is that because of the technology itself not having been completely developed besides being defective technology and economically non-viable, the complainant's industry suffered an infantile mortality. Upon the plant being commissioned during the trial production certain deficiencies in the plant were observed and that required redesigning, modification and alterations but the third opposite party could not rectify those defects resulting in the plant being shut down. The relief claimed against the third opposite party is for a direction to pay all the money received by them while supplying the machinery, with interest @21% per annum from the date of receipt of the money in lieu of supply of machinery with liquidated damages of Rs. 5.00 lakhs.

(3.) IT is also averred that the complainant while availing financial assistance from the first opposite party had hypothecated the land, the building, all its appurtenances along with the machinery and other ancillaries with the first opposite party, that the said land, building and all its appurtenances are hard earned by the complainant which has got not only the monetary value but also the sentimental value, that the first opposite party is completely aware of the fact that the ventures undertaken by the complainant ended in complete failure and the fourth opposite party has also not handed over the industry by way of turn-key mode to the complainant as agreed by them and that the act of the first opposite party in invoking Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is completely unfair, unreasonable, unjust, unilateral and arbitrary in the presence of the complete failure of the projects due to the clear act of collusiveness between the first opposite party and the fourth opposite party.