The September 26 issue of the Nuclear Intelligence Weekly quotes PXV Partner Mohit Abraham on the issue of supplier liability [Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, Vol V, No. 39, September 26, 2011, http://www.energyintel.com/Pages/About_UIW.aspx]. The relevant extract is as below:
While they have not been targeted by large-scale protests, the Japanese-American projects are stalled because the sup- pliers don’t think they should face liability in the event of an accident. They think only operator NPCIL should have to pay, and that it should not have the right of recourse to recoup those expenses from suppliers, which it does under Indian law. Earlier this month, Westinghouse Electric chief Aris Candris said the big vendors aren’t the ones shy of doing business in India because of this issue; it’s their small suppli- ers, which might only get $1,000 worth of business but could still face significant liability in the event of an accident, he said (NIW Sep.19’11).
Technically, “nothing would stop NPCIL from claiming its right of recourse against such small suppliers/sub-contractors,” because “there is no clear understanding of the scope of the word ‘supplier,’” said Indian nuclear liability specialist Mohit Abraham. However, from a practical per- spective, “I do not think NPCIL would go after each small supplier,” because the “direct contractual relationship” would be between NPCIL and the vendor.