Arbitration Involving Defective Conveyor Belts, Hoists, And Material-Handling Systems
1. Introduction: Material-Handling Systems
Material-handling systems in industrial or mining projects include:
Conveyor belts (belt conveyors, roller conveyors, chain conveyors)
Hoists (electrical, hydraulic, and rope-driven)
Cranes, lifts, and automated material transport systems
These systems are critical for operational efficiency, safety, and production continuity.
Contracts typically involve:
EPC or turnkey arrangements
Installation, testing, and commissioning obligations
Performance guarantees (speed, load capacity, uptime)
Warranty and defect liability clauses
Defects or underperformance often lead to arbitration, especially where contracts include technical specifications and performance guarantees.
2. Common Causes of Arbitration in Defective Material-Handling Systems
(a) Design Deficiencies
Improper load calculation or belt tension
Hoist mechanisms inadequate for rated load
Faulty structural support for conveyors or cranes
(b) Poor Installation or Commissioning
Misalignment of conveyor rollers or pulleys
Improper motor or drive assembly
Faulty lubrication, gear, or brake systems
(c) Performance Failure
Frequent belt slippage or tearing
Hoist over-travel or brake failure
Low throughput compared to guaranteed capacity
(d) Safety and Compliance Violations
Non-compliance with ISO, OSHA, or local safety standards
Lack of emergency stops or overload protections
(e) Post-Installation Operational Issues
Recurrent breakdowns affecting production
Premature wear of mechanical components
3. Issues Typically Examined by Arbitral Tribunals
Whether the material-handling system conforms to contractual specifications and performance guarantees
Whether defects arise from design, manufacturing, or installation deficiencies
Whether the contractor is liable under the defects liability/warranty clauses
Whether the employer is justified in engaging third-party repair or replacement
Calculation of damages for production loss, downtime, and rectification costs
4. Legal Principles Governing Such Arbitrations
(i) Fitness for Purpose
Even if installed as per drawings, failure to meet intended operational capacity constitutes breach.
(ii) Strict Compliance with Safety Norms
Deviation from design or safety standards can justify immediate corrective measures.
(iii) Latent vs. Patent Defects
Latent defects (e.g., faulty welding or motor insulation) discovered post-commissioning still attract liability.
(iv) Engineer or PMC Certification
Certification does not absolve contractor liability if defects emerge later.
(v) Limited Court Interference
Courts generally respect technical findings of arbitrators unless the award is perverse or illegal.
5. Important Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Violation of express contractual obligations constitutes patent illegality.
Relevance: Applied where conveyor or hoist systems fail to meet contract specifications.
2. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Arbitral tribunals are the final judges of technical facts.
Relevance: Critical for evaluating defects in material-handling systems based on expert evidence.
3. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Awards are not to be disturbed unless perverse or violative of public policy.
Relevance: Protects arbitral findings in complex technical disputes.
4. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Interpretation of contract clauses lies within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Relevance: Applied in determining scope of contractor obligations and warranty coverage.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Latent defects can give rise to claims even after project completion.
Relevance: Used where conveyor belts or hoists fail post-commissioning.
6. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Even an alternative interpretation of contract does not justify interference with arbitral award unless unreasonable.
Relevance: Ensures awards on technical liability for defective systems are respected.
7. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Engineer’s or PMC certification does not bar arbitration claims.
Relevance: Applicable where material-handling systems were certified but later failed.
6. Typical Arbitral Findings in Material-Handling System Disputes
Contractor liable for failure to meet performance guarantees
Employer justified in engaging third-party rectification at contractor’s cost
Damages include:
Replacement or repair of conveyor/hoist components
Loss of production or operational downtime
Additional supervision and commissioning costs
7. Practical Contractual Lessons
Specify technical performance guarantees (load, speed, capacity).
Include clear defects liability and warranty clauses.
Require commissioning tests, trial runs, and third-party inspections.
Maintain maintenance logs and operational testing records.
Include liquidated damages and performance penalties tied to downtime.
8. Conclusion
Arbitration concerning defective conveyor belts, hoists, and material-handling systems is primarily technical and fact-intensive. Indian jurisprudence emphasizes:
Contractual compliance and performance guarantees
Strict safety and operational standards
Expert evaluation by arbitral tribunals
Courts consistently uphold awards based on technical findings, even if alternate interpretations exist, ensuring contractors remain accountable for defective or underperforming material-handling systems.
RELATED Blog
comments