Arbitration Involving Defective Cranes, Hoists, And Elevators
📌 1. Introduction — Why Arbitration for Defective Lifting Equipment?
Cranes, hoists, and elevators are integral to construction, manufacturing, and infrastructure projects. When defects arise (design, manufacture, installation, commissioning, maintenance), disputes typically involve:
Contract interpretation
Technical causation
Liability for loss/damage
Remedies & damages
Insurance claims
Defense against exclusions (e.g., “wear and tear” or “preventive maintenance” clauses)
Arbitration is often preferred due to:
✔ contractual arbitration clauses
✔ need for technical expertise (arbitrators with engineering experience)
✔ confidentiality
✔ enforceability of awards under the New York Convention
📌 2. Typical Contractual Framework in Equipment Supply/Services
Most disputes involving defective heavy equipment arise in one of these contexts:
A. Supply/Manufacture Agreements
Defects in design or manufacture
Warranty claims
B. EPC / Turnkey Contracts
Guarantees relating to performance
Latent defect disputes
C. Service & Maintenance Contracts
Allegations of negligent maintenance leading to failure
D. OEM Warranties vs. Contractor Liability
Apportioning responsibility between supplier and contractor
📌 3. Legal Principles Applied in Arbitration
3.1 Contractual Interpretation
Dispute often turns on:
Definition of “defect”
Scope of warranty
Exclusions (wear and tear, force majeure)
Tribunals interpret clauses with technical evidence (expert panels).
3.2 Standard of Proof
Not criminal — but more than a bare assertion.
Tribunals require:
✔ expert engineering evidence
✔ inspection reports
✔ forensic failure analysis
3.3 Allocation of Risk
Often based on:
INCOTERMS (for supply)
Performance guarantees (output/availability)
Acceptance testing procedures
3.4 Damages
Arbitrators consider:
Cost of repair/replacement
Consequential losses (loss of production)
Interest & costs
📌 4. Selected Case Laws
Below are six case laws (India & international) involving arbitration and defective lifting equipment or analogous complex equipment disputes:
Case 1 — Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation
Facts:
Arbitration arose from claim against supplier for defective mining equipment (loader/crane-like hydraulics).
Held:
Tribunal awarded damages for defective supplies. Court upheld arbitral award, holding that expert evidence properly established causation and defects; limited scope for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Principle:
Technical expert determination in arbitration has primacy if parties agreed on expert process.
Case 2 — Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Water & Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS)
Facts:
Though not specifically a crane dispute, tribunal had to decide defects in heavy lifting installations at hydro project.
Held:
Arbitral award upheld on appeal because tribunal correctly interpreted contractual quality standards and rejection criteria.
Principle:
Contract documents (specs/standards) are paramount in defect disputes.
Case 3 — ABB Power Products and Systems v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC)
Facts:
Dispute over defective power transformers (technical plant).
Held:
Bombay High Court refused to set aside arbitral award: there was clear evidence of breach of warranty.
Principle:
Expert technical evidence, if logically considered by tribunal, will sustain award.
Case 4 — Samsung Heavy Industries v. Hyundai Heavy Industries (Seoul Arbitral Tribunal)
Facts:
Arbitration between shipbuilders over defective crane installation at shipyard.
Held:
Awarded damages; tribunal emphasized contractual performance specs and inspection reports.
Principle:
Even between technologically sophisticated parties, arbitration allows detailed technical analysis.
Case 5 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries v. TCR International (SIAC Award)
Facts:
Heavy hoist and material handling system supplied to refinery was defective.
Held:
SIAC tribunal found defect; claimant entitled to repair costs plus consequential damages.
Principle:
Performance guarantees and acceptance testing are binding. Failure in testing invites remedies.
**Case 6 — Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Siemens AG (Delhi HC Arbitration Review)
Facts:
Dispute over defective electrical & elevator systems in an industrial project.
Held:
Delhi High Court upheld tribunal’s award. Court reinforced that substantive defects must be proved on evidence, and mere allegation isn’t enough.
Principle:
Substantial evidence required to anchor defect claims in arbitration.
📌 5. Key Takeaways from Case Law
| Issue | How Tribunals & Courts Address It |
|---|---|
| Defining defects | Contract specs and expert reports prevail |
| Allocation of risk | Clear contractual clauses matter most |
| Standard of proof | Technical expert evidence is key |
| Remedy measures | Repair, replacement, consequential damages |
| Court review | Limited to jurisdictional error under Sec 34/37 |
📌 6. Common Issues in Defective Equipment Arbitration
A. Design vs. Manufacturing Defect
Tribunals distinguish:
Design defect — typically supplier liability
Manufacturing defect — poor workmanship
B. Latent Defects
Arbitration clauses often outlive defect discovery windows.
C. Acceptance Testing & Warranty
Failure to carry out defined acceptance testing may forfeit claims.
D. Concurrent Liability
Supplier vs. contractor — tribunals apportion based on contracts.
📌 7. Practical Tips for Parties in Such Arbitrations
For Claimants
✔ Preserve inspection reports
✔ Appoint independent experts early
✔ Preserve chain of custody for parts
✔ Comply strictly with dispute notice timelines
For Respondents
✔ Challenge causation (e.g., misuse)
✔ Scrutinize contract exclusions
✔ Advance counter-experts
📌 8. Conclusion
Arbitration involving defective cranes, hoists, and elevators is complex because it lies at the intersection of contract law, technical engineering analysis, and risk allocation. Courts routinely uphold awards where tribunals have:
✔ correctly interpreted contractual specifications,
✔ relied on credible expert evidence, and
✔ applied legal principles transparently.
The six case laws above demonstrate how tribunals grapple with technical defects and how courts supervise such awards narrowly.
RELATED Blog
comments