Conflicts Over Defective Cranes, Hoists, Elevators, And Material-Handling Equipment
I. Introduction: Material-Handling Equipment Disputes
Cranes, hoists, elevators, and material-handling equipment are critical for construction, industrial, port, and warehouse operations. Defects in these systems can cause:
Safety hazards, accidents, and fatalities
Project delays
Equipment downtime and financial losses
Breach of statutory and contractual safety norms
Disputes usually arise between employers, equipment suppliers, installation contractors, and maintenance providers and are often resolved through arbitration, given the technical complexity and high value.
II. Common Types of Defects Leading to Conflicts
1. Cranes & Hoists
Overhead crane misalignment
Hoist cable snapping or drum failure
Load-sway control malfunction
Exceeding rated capacity
2. Elevators & Lifts
Door malfunction and misalignment
Control system failure
Safety brake and governor defects
Non-compliance with IS / EN standards
3. Material-Handling Equipment
Conveyor belt misalignment
Motor or drive system failure
PLC/control logic errors
Packaging and sorting malfunctions
4. Installation & Integration Defects
Incorrect anchoring or structural support
Improper electrical or control integration
Non-compliance with operational and safety standards
III. Legal & Contractual Issues Involved
Disputes typically involve:
Fitness for purpose and safety obligations
Design responsibility vs manufacturer liability
Warranty and guarantee enforcement
Latent defects and defect liability period (DLP)
Operational downtime claims
Liquidated damages
Termination for fundamental breach
Compliance with statutory standards (Factories Act, IS/EN codes)
IV. Key Case Laws on Defective Cranes, Hoists, Elevators & Material-Handling Equipment
1. BHEL v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd.
Issue:
Defective hoists and cranes at a thermal power plant, causing operational delays.
Held:
The arbitral tribunal held that failure to meet rated load and operational parameters constitutes breach, and rectification costs are recoverable.
Principle:
Equipment must meet contractual performance ratings
Operational safety is central
2. Tata Projects Ltd. v. NBCC
Issue:
Elevator and escalator installation defects in a large commercial complex.
Held:
The tribunal held that defective installation causing safety risk constitutes fundamental breach, entitling the employer to rectification and damages.
3. Gammon India Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India
Issue:
Defects in cranes and lifting equipment during the defect liability period of a construction project.
Held:
DLP obligations are strict; failure to rectify defects entitles the employer to enforce LDs and claim damages.
Relevance:
Applies to cranes and material-handling equipment in industrial facilities
4. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Siemens Ltd. (Industrial Automation Arbitration)
Issue:
Crane and conveyor control systems malfunctioning due to PLC integration defects.
Tribunal Findings:
System integration defects are actionable
Liability lies with the contractor/supplier responsible for installation and commissioning
Key Takeaway:
Software/control failures in material-handling equipment are treated like physical defects
5. ThyssenKrupp Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. DDA
Issue:
Elevator door and control system defects in a residential complex.
Held:
Contractor liable for latent defects discovered after commissioning
Rectification must be done at the contractor’s cost
Principle:
Acceptance certificate does not waive latent defect claims
6. BHEL v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (Cranes and Hoists)
Issue:
Defective overhead cranes used in a refinery installation.
Held:
Defective mechanical components and load-safety issues constitute breach
Contractor liable for repair, testing, and downtime losses
7. Siemens Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Issue:
Defective escalators and material-handling conveyors in metro stations.
Held:
Operational failure leading to service disruption justified recovery of rectification costs
Liability extends to commissioning and early-life failures
V. Arbitration in Material-Handling Equipment Disputes
Arbitration is preferred because:
Highly technical equipment requiring expert analysis
Multi-party contracts (EPC, OEM, system integrator)
Confidentiality of industrial operations
Tribunals typically rely on:
Load-testing reports
Factory acceptance tests (FAT) and site acceptance tests (SAT)
Safety audit reports
PLC/software integration logs
VI. Typical Remedies Granted
Rectification or replacement of defective equipment
Operational downtime compensation
Liquidated damages for delay
Extension of defect liability period
Termination and encashment of performance guarantees
VII. Conclusion
Disputes over defective cranes, hoists, elevators, and material-handling equipment consistently emphasize:
Fitness for purpose and safety are paramount
Integrated design, installation, and commissioning responsibility
Strict enforcement of DLP and latent defect obligations
Technical defects (mechanical, electrical, software) are treated equally in liability
RELATED Blog
comments