This is not an unsubstantiated accusation, but facts proved in courts.
The reason for drawing attention to arbitration practice was a fresh article under the heading "Uralvagonzavod" lost to the Ministry of Defense a court because of a breakdown in the Taman Division tank under warranty "on the website of the Nizhny Tagil news portal" Between the Lines. "In short, it says that" Uralvagonzavod Corporation has supplied the military with the 188A1 T-90A Main Battle Tank under a 2007 contract. During operation in the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division, stationed in the village of Kalininets, Moscow Region, the tank under warranty broke down. The military drew up a complaint, and Uralvagonzavod sent two employees to the Moscow region to check the technical condition of the tank and repair it. Experts found that the cause of the failure is operational. "To be more precise," the prerequisite for this defect was the operation of the onboard gearbox with a low oil level in it, "says the Moscow Arbitration Court. The factory service team left for the place. which carried out repair work. Accordingly, UVZ demanded to recover 1 thousand rubles for spare parts and about 781 thousand rubles for business trips. The court refused UVZ to satisfy the requirements.
Knowing that "Between the lines" are local "brawlers" - it is useful to check. Indeed, such a thing was the place to be, but at the same time, I stumbled upon a few more relatively fresh ones. In general, in order ...
I'll start the analysis with what got into the press:
Case No.A40-114050 / 15-176-908 from 19.06.2015 year. The resolution part of the decision was announced on October 12, but the full text of the decision was made on December 31 of the year 2015. Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation OJSC (hereinafter also the plaintiff) appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a claim for recovery of losses from the RF Ministry of Defense (hereinafter also the respondents) 1.826.398 rubles 9 kopecks. According to the plaintiff, as part of the fulfillment of obligations under the state contract from 13.04.2007 No. T-113 (hereinafter also referred to as the contract), the plaintiff (supplier) delivered to the defendant (customer) a product-object 188А1 "Main battle tank T-90А" No. 2У11ВТ4273 (release November 2006 of the year), during the operation of which, during the warranty period, military unit No. 23626 (5-IMSBR, now 2-I MSD) detected defects.
During the inspection of the rejected product, a claim act No. XXUMX / 884 was drawn up, confirming the presence of the detected defect and the need to eliminate it by the supplier. To establish the cause of a product defect at the factory, an inspection report from 5 No. 07.10.2013 / 9-245 was drawn up, according to which the cause of the defect is operational, with the onboard gearbox (BKP) operating with a low oil level in it being a prerequisite for this defect.
In connection with the above, the plaintiff suffered losses related to sending two of its employees to the place of work on the restoration of the failed product in the period from 01.03.2013 to 06.03.2013 in the amount of 1.826.398 rubles 9 kopecks, of which travel expenses –33.771 ruble 74 kopecks, wages payment of seconded workers and social insurance contributions - 11.137 rubles 13 kopecks, cost of spare parts –1.781.498 rubles 22 kopecks.
To recover the amount of damages, the plaintiff must prove the fact of the breach of obligations by the defendants, the existence and amount of the damages caused, as well as the causal link between the violation and the losses incurred.
Meanwhile, the court concluded that the person whose actions (inaction) had caused damage to the claimant had not been established; evidence, confirming the damage to the plaintiff as a result of actions (inaction) of the defendant and testifying to the wrongfulness of his behavior, as well as the presence of a causal link between such illegal actions and causing damage, the plaintiff did not provide.
The result - in the lawsuit "Uralvagonzavod" was denied. Simply put, despite the fact that the defect was of an operational nature, they could not find a specific culprit. But where is it? Not at all clear! It is clear that in the event of detection of an error of operation - the culprit of the incident is the operator - a specific military unit. The tank has been in operation for more than six years - who else should be responsible for the oil level ??? In general, this decision can still be appealed in a month’s time, and it seems that the court will still be completely permeated. Confirmation of this, several more cases from arbitration practice with the participation of Uralvagonzavod and Moscow Region.
Case No.A40-68180 / 15 from 19 August 2015 of the year. The essence of the question is almost the same.
In accordance with contract No. T-113 of 13.04.2007, Uralvagonzavod supplied the MO of the Russian Federation with product 188А1 No. 2С07ВТ3288 (tank T-90А, released in July 2010 of the year). According to the complaint act No. 8 from 16.03.2012. the customer rejected the product due to the failure of the В-92С2 engine №2Я11AT1741 (release: December 2009г). The warranty period for the product is set to 10 years. At the time of the drafting of the complaint, the term of use of the product by the military unit - 1 year 6 months (ie, the tank was delivered in September 2010-th). The cause of the defect and the guilty party have not been established in the complaint act, a study of the defective product has been appointed at the manufacturer, LLC ChTZ-Uraltrak. In conclusion to the act it is indicated that the failed engine was replaced with a new one - №2С06AT0897 (issue :: June 2010g) from the fund of the military unit 61899 (27-IMSBR), the engine performance was checked according to the operating instructions 92XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .
In addition, in conclusion of the research report No. 15 about the cause of a defect in the B-92C2 engine No. 2Я11AT1741, returned by the military unit from the parade site (the breakdown probably occurred during the preparation for the parade) upon notification of the 47 VP MO MO out. No. 47 / 177 from 30.03.12. according to the complaint act No. 8 from 16.03.2012. It is indicated that the engine failure is related to the destruction of the main and trailing connecting rods of the 2-x engine cylinders, the reason for which the studies conducted by the Supplier have not been established
According to the results of the studies conducted in the supplement to the act of study No. 15 from 02.04.2012. the reason for the engine defect given to the committee that the engine failure B-92S2 №2YA11AT1741 associated with the destruction of the main-2 (sb.3304-02-4) and trailing (sb.3304-03-5) rods due to violations operation, use of fuel with a low flash point. The established nature of the defect is operational.
Engine cost В-92С2 № 2С11AT1688 (release: December 2010г., Supplied by Uralvagonzavod to replenish the fund of military unit 61899) under an agreement between JSC NPK Uralvagonzavod after F.E. Dzerzhinsky "and LLC Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-URALTRAC" on the manufacture and supply of number 54 / 1-23D from 16.06.2010., The price of the engine is defined in invoice No. 15732 from 29.11.2010г. invoice and amounted to 3 682 296 RUB. 14 cop
Work on the restoration of the product was performed by a team of 4 people, spent on the restoration of the product 188A1 № 2С07ВТ3288 -3 of the day. The fare (4 person) was 48 809,50 rubles. Daily expenses (4 person) for 3 of the day on 500 rub. per day made 6 000,00 rubles. Apartment expenses (4 person) for 3 of the day by 2 500 rub. per day made 30 000,00 rubles. Total travel expenses amounted to 84 809,50 rubles. The cost of the restoration work of the team from 4 people are calculated on the basis of the labor intensity norms for similar work (from the “Manual on troop repair. Replacing and repairing units and assemblies”, based on the actually paid salary in the 248 cipher (during a business trip), social insurance deduction rates: 30% by order of the Government of the Russian Federation on 24.11.2011 No. 974 and 4,1% in accordance with the Notice of the amount of insurance premiums on compulsory social insurance on 15.04.2011 .: Basic salary (4 person) = 19 024,56 RUB., Social security contributions, 34,1% = 6 487,37 RUB Total costs for the work amounted to 25 511,93 rubles.
The total amount of costs associated with the restoration of the defective product and the replacement of a failed engine - 3 749 604,54 rub.
The Claimant did not receive a response to the claim sent to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
The decision of the court is in favor of Uralvagonzavod.
Case No. A40-113819 / 15 from 22 October 2015 of the year.
Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation OJSC appealed to the Moscow Arbitration Court with a claim to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for recovery of damages in the amount of 15 043 rubles. 30 cop. (Only - !!!, but the fact is a fact) .
As follows from the statement of claim, contract No. T-113 of 13.04.2007 was concluded between Uralvagonzavod and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, according to the terms of which 188-X1 products were delivered to the Respondent. 07.12.2012 when viewing a defective product 188А1 No. 2У10ВТ5624 (T-90А release October 2006 of the year) in military unit No. 22220 (20-I OMSBr), the commission drafted a reclamation act No. 13, confirming the presence of a detected defect, a year, the an a way, a year, a year, and out of service. The warranty period for the product is set for 188 years, the warranty time is 1 km. 10 m / h. Product 6000А350 №188У1ВТ2 used 10 years 5624 month, 6 km .. 3 m / h. In conclusion of the reclamation act №2475 from 362g. it is indicated that the AK-13SV-Yu compressor should be replaced with a new one from the fund of Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation OJSC on the product. The reclamation act was signed by the commander of military unit No. 02.02.2013, the chairman of the commission, the head of the NBTS military unit 150, and the representative of Uralvagonzavod Scientific Production Corporation.
To establish the cause of the defect of the 188А1 item No.2У10ВТ5624, the manufacturing plant of the OJSC MMZ Znamya prepared the test report No.11 from 16.04.2013, which concluded that the cause of the defect is operational. The research act was agreed with the head of 353 24.04.2013 military office, the technical director of OAO MNZ Znamya 22.04.2013, the chairman of the commission, the head of the research bureau.
Based on the court documents, the dispute protocol was not drafted when the investigation report was signed by the Respondent, the investigation report was agreed by the representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and confirms the presence of an operational defect of the product, 188А1 №2У10ВТ5624 without any claims.
In connection with the above, for the restoration of the product 188А1 №2У10ВТ5624 "Uralvagonzavod" suffered losses associated with the secondment of the worker and the performance of work on the restoration of the failed product. Between January 16 and 2013. February 08 2013 An 1 employee was seconded to restore the product from Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation OJSC (the duration of business trips is 24 days, including the restoration works of 188А1, № 2У10ВТ5624 -1 days). The amount of travel expenses is 13 686,70 rubles. of them:
Daily expenses in the amount of -700 rub. x 1 people. 1 day = 700 rub. apartment expenses in the amount of -2 500,00 rub. x 1 people day = 2500 rub. fare in the amount of - 10 486,70 rub.
The cost of the work - 1356,60 rub. of which: Basic salary - 252,60 rub. / hour x 4,0 hours = 1010,40 rub .; Social insurance contribution –34,264% = 1010,40 x 34,264% = 346,20 rub. The total amount of travel expenses amounted to 15043 rubles. 30 cop
The plaintiff (UVZ) sent a claim to the defendant with a claim for reimbursement. MO tried (in other matters, as usual) to shift the blame on the plant - such as a factory defect. But the evidence could not even provide.
Bottom line: the requirements of the manufacturer - "Uralvagonzavod" and this time were met. The truth of the disarranged MO, filed an appeal, which will be considered only 4 February.
Case No.A40-114094 / 15 from 23.06.2015. Solution from 19.08.2015. The lawsuit filed for the recovery of 6894 rubles. 80 cop (even more ridiculous even in comparison with the previous one), making up the amount of losses under the same contract No. T-113 from 13.04.2007. The definition of the Moscow Arbitration Court of 23.06.2015g. The claim was accepted for consideration in the procedure of simplified production. The defendant did not submit a written response to the claim, no objections were made.
The crux of the matter: a representative from the military unit 63354 (136-I OMSBr) filed a complaint against the plaintiff-a written statement in the prescribed form for defects found during the warranty period, as well as the requirement to replace defective products.
Notice of a defect in the 188А1 2Я07ВТ9822 (420) product (issue: July 2009 of the year, "420" is a tail number), due to a malfunction of the 172.33.011-4 air exhaust valve, presented to the plaintiff’s employees on site in the XNUM military unit. 63354 during the inspection of the defective product in the military unit 14.11.2013, formed by the commission, a complaint statement No. 63354 was drawn up, confirming the presence of the detected defect, as well as the warranty period for the product 67А188, which failed.
The circumstances described in the complaint of a defective product 188А1 2Я07ВТ9822 (420), research report No. 9 / 33-140 from 04.02.2014, namely: the actual determination of the defect of product 188X1 from the developer, the developer, the system’s product, 67 / 14.11.2013-63354 from 63354, is: in response to the claim for payment of the amount of the costs, not contested. In conclusion, to the complaint act No. XNUMX from XNUMXg. it is indicated that the product was restored by the supplier by the consumer, approved for use, the claim was satisfied, there were no claims from the XNUMX military unit to the plaintiff for the above defect. The reclamation act was signed by the temporary director of the BTS unit XNUMX, Capt. V. Timofeev, the temporary deputy chief commander Tb for armaments of the station Art. Leader A.Kondratenko and the head of the group of representatives of OAO NPK Uralvagonzavod in the Southern Military District A.Nagornyak.
To establish the cause of the defect of the product 188А1 2Я07ВТ9822 (420), the manufacturer’s factory of the Scientific and Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod OJSC compiled a research report No. 9 / 33-140 from 04.02.2014, which contained a conclusion of a figure, which contained a conclusion; The research act was coordinated with the Head of the 47 VP of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation O. Zazulya 30.01.2014, Chief Engineer of Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Corporation OJSC Y. Shangin, Director for Quality of Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Corporation OJSC A.Titov, Chairman of the Commission, Deputy Head 140 workshop and other members of the commission. The protocol of disagreements during the signing of the research report by the respondent was not drawn up, the research report was approved by the representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and confirms the presence of an operational defect of the 188А1 product engine № 2Я07ВТ9822 without any claims.
Thus, the plaintiff for the restoration of the product 188А1 №2Я07ВТ9822 suffered losses associated with the secondment of the employee and the work on the restoration of the failed product 188А1. In the period 27.11.2013g. on 07.12.2013 An employee was seconded to restore the product from Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation OJSC (the duration of the trip was –11 days, including the work on restoring the product 188А1 №2Я07ВТ9822 - 1 day).
Nagornyak A.G. (travel certificate No5043 from 26.11.2013, advance report No8178 from 26.12.2013),
a) the amount of travel expenses is 6505 rubles. 60 cop of which: daily expenses in the amount of 700 rub. x 1 day = 700 rub., travel expenses in the amount of 2200 rub. x 1 day = 2200 rub., fare in the amount of –3605 rub. 60 cop
b) the cost of the work - 389 rub. 20 cop of them: the main salary paid - (Nagornyak A.N.) = 289 rub. 88 cop. / Hour x 1,0 hours = 289 rub. 88 cop Social insurance contributions - 34,264% = 289 rub. 88 cop x 34,264% = 99 rub. 32 cop
The total amount of losses in the form of costs incurred by the plaintiff related to the restoration of the product is 6894 rubles. 80 cop the nature of the malfunction is confirmed by documents - an act of complaint drawn up by the commission in the prescribed manner.
Considering that the plaintiff proved the illegality of actions (inaction), the presence and amount of the harm caused, and the presence of a direct causal connection between the actions of the defendant and the losses caused to the plaintiff, claims are subject to court satisfaction in the declared amount, which was executed.
One could also postebatsya over the fact that to perform simple repairs, for which one person spends a maximum of one hour, they tear him down from the Urals and drive him to Dagestan, as a result of which the trip amounts to 11 days, but I will not ... One thing is clear - the system learning tankers, and, most importantly, the operation of tanks, we have long been time to change. This is due to both the complexity of the new technology, and its high cost. About this he wrote in his blog more than once. But let's hope that by the arrival of the Armata T-14 serial tanks in the army, at least something will change ...