IMPORTANT POINT
Where plant supplied to the complainant did not function properly even after repeated repairing due to poor fabrication quality, the complainant shall be entitled to amount paid to supplier along with interest after removal of the plant by the supplier thereof.

K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that the complainant was informed by Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Opposite Party No. 2 under the aegis of Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources about an alternative form of cost effective energy for use by the complainant and if the complainant opted for it, the opposite party No. 2 would subsidise the installation/ running of the plant. Opposite party No. 2 recommended the name of opposite party No. 1 who had good reputation in the market. Along with letter dated 29.11.94 the opposite party No. 2 forwarded to the complainant a brochure of the gas plant manufactured by opposite party No.1. By the letter dated 8.12.95, opposite party No.1 gave offer for supply of a Rice Husk Gasification plant for generation of 200 Kw electrical power. Cost of fabrication of the plant was quoted as Rs. 14 lakhs in addition to Rs. one lakh for erection, commissioning and operational run of 30 days. Amount of Rs. 56,000/- was also to be paid towards sales tax. Terms and conditions of sale supplied by opposite party no. 1 stipulated that supply and erection of the said plant will be completed within six months. However, in view of the urgent requirement of complainant the opposite party No. 1 agreed to reduce the period from six months to three months and plant was to be commissioned before 8.3.1996. By the letter dated 28.1.1996, the complainant complained of delay in commissioning the plant to opposite party No. 1. This letter was replied to vide letter dated 2.2.1996 by opposite party No.1 making excuse for the delay on ground of having made certain modifications in their earlier design. In the reply, the opposite party No. 1 also mentioned that they would send their man with foundation drawing on 6th/ 7th February, 1996 and first truck of plant and machinery will be dispatched on 10.2.1996 while second and third truck loads on 16th and 23rd February, 1996. Since the time schedule assured in the reply dated 2.2.1996 was not adhered to, the complainant wrote letter dated 12.2.96 which was followed by the letter dated 3.4.1996. Complainant again wrote letter on 18.5.96 to opposite party No.1 stating the urgency of erection and commissioning of the plant. Complainant received a letter dated 4.6.1996 from opposite party No. 2 who took a stern note of the delay caused by opposite party No. 1 in erection and commissioning of the plant. Opposite party No. 1 was given instructions to complete the erection and commissioning of plant by 30.6.1996. By the letter dated 19.6.96, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that there would be no delay in putting the plant into operation. Commissioning of the plant had not taken place by mid October 1996 when the factory of the complainant was inspected by S.M. Deshpande, Executive Engineer working with opposite party No. 2. After commissioning of plant on 20.3.97, the complainant wrote to opposite party No. 1 on 23rd May 1997 about non-satisfactory tar separation and I back-firing in the plant. After this problem was rectified, the plant started developing new problem of the firing was not taking place correctly. Gas was not available as the necessary temperature was not maintained. Complainant again made complaint to opposite party No.1 on 26.9.1997. It was further pleaded that the technician deputed by opposite party No.1 was unable to put the gasifier into operation. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that there was some problem in the plant on 27.12.1997. Ultimately, complainant got a legal notice dated 11.4.1998 served on opposite party No.1 with copy opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 sent reply to the notice on 30.4.98. Opposite party No. 2 asked Prof. B.S. Pathak of Sardar Patel Renewal Energy Research Institute, Gujarat to visit the plant of the complainant and make suggestions for rectification of the problems. Opposite party No. 2 also wrote to opposite party No. 1 on 1. 12.98 asking them to pro