“12 The Central Commission has not unjustifiably held that the damages in the form of IDC and IEDC should not be passed on to the beneficiaries. The manufacturer of ICT and its transportation is essentially a matter between the appellant and its vendor. This is a matter contractual between them alone. A number of factors, namely, whether in the construction of the ICT at the manufacturer’s end there were defects or not, whether adequate precautionary measures were taken for transportation of the machine or not, whether the ICT was sent back with utmost dispatch or not, whether there was any delay in effecting repairs or not, whether there was any agreement between the appellant and the manufacturer or not, what were the terms and conditions, if any, so agreed to between the manufacturer and the appellant, in this regard are all unknown and in the circumstances it cannot be said in a broad sweep that the delay cannot be attributed to appellant and/or the manufacturer. Rightly the Commission has said in the impugned order that it is a bilateral issue between the manufacturer and the appellant. Responsibility is upon both to ensure that the machine is transported and journeyed safely and it cannot be said that the parties must not take into account the condition of road for transportation. It is not a case of breakdown, while working without any human fault, of machinery all on a sudden over which the party could not have any prior control. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order complained of is devoid of reasonable analysis of the factual situation and the Commission committed any illegality.”
