HON’BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No.  02

Date: 19.02.2021

Parties are present through their respective Ld. Lawyers.

OP 5 files a petition for filing written version. The prayer is considered and allowed.

Fix 09.03.2021 for filing written version by OP 5.

IA/55/2020 is taken up for hearing.

Heard Ld. Lawyer for the both sides. Considered.

The instant IA relates to an application for shifting of two automatic Fly Ash Brick production machines together with Batching Plant and Pre-Feeder,s the subject matter of the dispute of the case, from the existing place to some other safe place in the same premises of the factory.

It is stated that the complainant has filed the instant case against the OP alleging deficiency-in-service and unfair trade practice.

It is stated that the said Fly Ash Machine along with Batching Plant and Pre-Feeder occupy an area of 6755 sq. ft. The said machine and equipment are standing idle because of manufacturing defect and those machineries are occupying 6755 sq. ft. of covered shed area in the factory premises. As the matter is subjudiced before this Commission, there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case. The complainant, therefore, has prayed for a permission to shift the machine to some other safe place under supervision of proforma OP 5 and in presence of OPs 1 and 2.

Ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of OPs 1,2 and 3 have opposed the petition in stating that the complainant is trying to install the machine alleging that the machines are defective and the main dispute of the case is with regard to the defective machines as alleged and the entire proceeding will be frustrated if  the machines are allowed to be removed from the present place to some other place.

We find that the complainant has alleged defects in civil masonary works against  the OPs including the allegation that the machines in question are defective and that the OPs have supplied defective machines to the complainant.

We find that the complainant installed the machine at a place according to his choice and selection of t he site. No expert is appointed in this case till the date to examine whether the machines are defective are not. OP 5 appears to be technician of workman and he is also a party in this case. So, the proposal to dismantle the machine and take it to some other place in presence and supervision of OP 5 cannot be encouraged. Moreover, the crux of the controversy is manufacturing defect of the aforesaid machine and also regarding civil masonry works. Accordingly, We think that dismantling of  the machine and removal to some other place may invite complication in disposing the case. We are afarid, we cannot entertain the petition under disposal at this stage.

Hence,

                                                ORDERED

The instant IA being No. IA/55/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

Fix 09.03.2021 for filing written version by proforma OP 5.

                     The instant IA is thus disposed of.