State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr on 30 May, 2023
Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023
The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 16/04/2019
Date of Final Hearing: 04/05/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 30/05/2023
COMPLAINT CASE No.- CC/2019/18
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited,
Through: Authorized Signatory Rohit Raman
S/o. Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra,
Regd. Office - Govind Kunj, Ram Nath Bhimsen Marg,
Near Krishna Talkies, Samta Colony,
RAIPUR (C.G.) - 492 001
Through: Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate
... Complainant.
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through: Divisional Manager,
No.153, First Floor, Guru Arcade, Zone-1, Maharana Pratap Nagar,
BHOPAL (M.P.) - 462 011
... Opposite Party No.1
2. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through: Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk,
RAIPUR (C.G.)
... Opposite Party No.2
Both Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI GOPAL CHANDRA SHIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the opposite parties.
JUDGEMENT
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This complaint, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) has been filed by the complainant alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the amount of its insurance claim and seeking directions to them for payment of loss suffered due to Dismissed Page 1 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
spontaneous combustion in the sponge iron stock of Rs.29,70,000/- (Twenty Nine Lacs Seventy Thousand) along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident i.e. 06.04.2018 and compensation for mental agony to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) cause due to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. Cost of litigation along with any other relief which this Commission deems fit to award have also been sought.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy on 16.02.2018 vide policy No.1911001117P116664971 covering the risk for the period between 18:00 hrs of 16.02.2018 to 15.02.2019 midnight and paid premium of Rs.34,909.00 including the three add-on covers of earthquake, STFI Cover, spontaneous combustion. The opposite parties covered the complainant‟s sponge iron plant situated at Vill. Munrethi, Siltara, Dharsiva, Raipur (C.G.) 493221 particularly the building including boundary wall, plant & machinery, raw material, stock in process, stock of sponge / coal and finished goods. On 06.04.2018 there was heavy storm/ tempest/ flood/ inundation in Raipur, which continued even on 07.04.2018, in support of which newspaper reports‟ cuttings have been filed. As per the complainant due to said storm/ tempest the sheets of the shed blown away and rain water entered in the bunker where the sponge iron was stocked. When the rain water came into contact with the sponge iron due to chemical reaction (spontaneous combustion) the sponge iron stock was damaged. Immediately the incident was intimated to the opposite parties through email dated 07.04.2018 and the insurance broker through which the policy was obtained and the insurance company was requested to register claim and appoint a surveyor.
Dismissed Page 2 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
3. Thereafter on 14.04.2018 the complainant filed duly filled fire insurance claim form, Annexure A-3. In turn the opposite party insurance company deputed Mr. Rajiv Dausage as surveyor to conduct survey of the insured property and to assess the loss, who in turn inspected the insured property and the damaged stock, collected samples and asked the complainant to submit certain documents. As requested by the surveyor, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents including a copy of the insurance policy, claim form, paper cutting, estimate of loss, closing stock, costing of material, annual reports with balance sheets for FY 2015- 16, 2016-17 and trial balance sheet of FY 2017-18, purchase register for three months, sale register for three months, salvage value of sponge iron, flow chart and drawing of the plant to the surveyor on 16.05.2018. Copy of the said letter is filed as Annexure A-13. Based on the quantity of stock kept at the insured property and the extent of damage to such stock, the complainant has estimated the total loss at Rs.29,70,000/-, but despite fulfilling own part and obligations by the complainant and several requests made to the insurance company the opposite parties insurance company have failed to timely respond and pay the complainant its genuine claim under the insurance policy, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties hence this complaint is filed seeking directions to the opposite parties insurance company as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
4. The opposite parties in their written version have admitted the facts of issuance of insurance policy with add-on cover of earthquake, STFI and spontaneous combustion, subject to policy conditions and exclusion clauses. The description of risk and description of insured location of the subject matter of insurance have also been admitted. The Dismissed Page 3 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
opposite parties have denied the incident of heavy storm/ tempest/ flood/ inundation in Raipur on 06.04.2018 and its continuation on 07.04.2018 and asserted that as per Meteorological Report annexed with the Survey Report, at about 2:30 pm on the relevant day there was scattered clouds and subsequently there was thunder showers but in all the situation the wind velocity was 4 to 9 Kms per hour only, which could not by any reason construed as a storm or a tempest. It is also denied that the sheets of the sponge iron bunker blown away and rain water entered into the sponge iron stock and due to chemical reaction (spontaneous combustion) the stock of sponge iron got damaged. Rather the meteorological report drawn from the Google also confirms that the wind velocity was not that much which could uproot the sheets, however thunder showers were reported. The paper cutting annexed with the survey report confirmed that there was 9 mm rain. In fact the affected material, as alleged, was not stored in proper shed, as it was stored in a worn out and rusted shed, which shows gross negligence on the part of the insured complainant itself. Immediate intimation of the incident was also not given as the Annexure-12 which has been filed along with the complaint is the copy of email supposedly sent on 09.04.2018 i.e. after three days of the alleged incident, whereas as per Condition No.06 of the policy in question, the complainant was to inform the incident of loss or damage to the insured property on the day of happening itself.
5. The opposite parties further averred that on intimation the opposite party No.1 promptly deputed Mr. Rajiv Dausage, an IRDA Licensed Surveyor, who visited the premises of the complainant on 14.04.2018 for spot inspection, analysis of cause and assessment of the alleged loss to the insured property. Samples were drawn and were sent for testing to Dismissed Page 4 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
ascertain the extent of damage to the stock, statement were taken, books of accounts of the complainant and inventory position as on the date of alleged loss were scrutinized. The opposite parties contended that the insured complainant, in spite of repeated reminders by the surveyor, has deliberately not provided copy of the police report and meteorological report, balance sheet of 2017-18, which were vital documents to decide the claim and quantification of the loss. It is specifically denied that all the relevant documents were submitted to the surveyor. The surveyor obtained meteorological report from Google and Form No.AOC-4 for filing financial statements with the Registrar of Companies, pertaining to the year 2017-18, which was necessary for arriving at the loss to the subject matter of insurance and on the basis of his above all efforts the Surveyor summed up his final Survey Report to the effect that rain water directly came into contact with the stock due to rusting of sheets and not due to uprooting of the same. The books of accounts has drastic variations, as per meteorological report wind velocity was not that much which could uproot the sheet of shed, there was only 9mm rain fall. The material was not stored in the proper shed. The shed was rusted from the sides and the top roof, which is gross negligence on the part of the insured and lastly that the insured has not preferred claim pertaining to the shed, which is normally the first part of the claim, in case of damages occurred on account of STFI peril. However, presently the claim has been preferred for loss to the stock, which is also on account of rain.
6. The estimated loss by the complainant has also been denied on the ground that complainant has prepared a separate break-up of stocks as on 06.04.2018 with an inventory value arrived at Rs.1,99,02,701/- whereas in page No.4 of Form AOC-4, which has been filed with the Registrar, the Dismissed Page 5 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
stock as on 31.03.2018 was of Rs.7,65,99,626/-. Hence, it clearly appears that the complainant has drastically reduced the closing stocks by around six crores, within a span of six days without an iota of evidence to explain the reasons behind sudden depletion of stocks. It is also asserted that the complainant was holding average stock of Rs.13.43 Crores based on the balance sheets of 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-18 but the closing stocks as provided by the complainant on 06.04.2018 was only Rs.1,99,02,701/-, much below the average stock and has failed to provide any figure to substantiate this drastic cut in inventories, particularly for the period from 01.04.2018 to 06.04.2018 i.e. the date of incident. Based on the above principles, figures and findings, the complainant is not entitled to any claim amount as per General Condition Nos.1, 6 & 8 of the policy. Thus the complainant itself has erred in discharging contractual obligations, resulting in repudiation of the claim and in which no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was committed by the opposite party insurance company. Hence, the complaint be dismissed with cost.
7. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit dated 12.04.2019, 03.10.2019 and additional affidavit dated 04.09.2020 of Mr. Rahit Raman, the Authorized Signatory of the complainant and documents as per list marked as Annexure A-1 to A-26, which includes copy of insurance policy, endorsement schedule of the policy, fire insurance claim, annual reports, trial balance, sale register, daily stock register, ledger account of the complainant, correspondence with the insurance company and the surveyor, tax invoices, stock in hand of the complainant company and board resolution regarding authorization to Mr. Rohit Raman for filing this complaint. Whereas the opposite parties in Dismissed Page 6 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
support of its written version has filed affidavit of Mr. Janranjan Purohit, Senior Divisional Manager of the insurance company and that of Mr. Rajiv Dausage, Surveyor and documents as per list marked as Exhibit OP-1 to OP-5, which includes copy of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy along with its terms and conditions, email intimation, fire insurance claim, report of the surveyor dated 12.03.2019 along with photographs & documents and no claim letter dated 21.06.2019.
8. We have heard the final arguments advanced by both the parties and perused their written arguments and case-laws relied by them. We have also minutely perused the documents and affidavits submitted by both parties.
9. The opposite parties have not disputed the issuance of Standard Fire and Special Perils policy with add-on coverage subject to the exclusions and general conditions of the policy. The sum insured under different heads and the policy period is also not in dispute and both the parties have filed copy of the insurance policy and the policy schedule. From the complaint, affidavits filed in its support and on behalf of the complainant as well the fire insurance claim form, filed and marked as Annexure A-3 by the complainant and Exhibit OP-3 by the opposite parties it clearly appears that the complainant has only claimed loss to the sponge iron stock due to spontaneous combustion caused by rain water which came into contact with the sponge iron stock kept at the insured property, which resulted in the chemical reaction (spontaneous combustion). As per the complainant, on 06.04.2018, there was heavy storm/ tempest/ flood/ inundation in Raipur, which continues on the next day also and in support of this contention only newspaper reports‟ Dismissed Page 7 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
cuttings are filed without any report of Meteorological Department. On the contrary the opposite parties have filed weather history of Raipur of timeanddate.com and in weather history of Raipur for 06.04.2018 from 08:30 to 20:30 the weather is mentioned as sunny, scattered clouds, thundershowers and overcast and wind velocity is mentioned 4 km/h, 7 km/h, 9 km/h and 11 km/h. Regarding the weather conditions except these two documents, one newspaper reports‟ cuttings filed by the complainant and the report drawn from the internet from timeanddate.com no other document is available on record. Looking to the importance of weather report in this matter, the complainant ought to have sought the same from Meteorological Department and have filed the same on record to properly substantiate its contention of heavy storm and rainfall on the relevant date. Mere filing of newspaper reports‟ cuttings cannot be held substantial proof, whereas to counter this contention the opposite parties have filed the report drawn from the internet by the Surveyor, who filed such report along with his report and the same is filed before us. The Surveyor in his affidavit also, in paragraph No.6 has stated that he drawn the details of the Meteorological Department from the Google which confirmed that at 2:30 pm there were scattered clouds and subsequently there was thunder showers but in all cases the wind velocity was 4 to 9 kms per hour.
10. These all facts clearly go to show that there was no case of heavy storm/ tempest/ flood/ inundation on the relevant date at Raipur, in fact there was thunder showers and wind velocity was also not that much which could cause uprooting of roof sheets of the shed as claimed by the complainant in paragraph No.12 of the complaint. The complainant has contended that rain water entered into the bunker where the sponge iron Dismissed Page 8 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
was stocked and sheets of shed above the bunker blown away. But as per the weather report, there was no such wind velocity or storm which could blow the sheets of the sheds due to which rain water entered in the stock and in this situation we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the opposite parties based on the report of the Surveyor that the sheets of the shed were worn out and the sponge iron was stocked negligently under such worn out shed due to which the rain water entered into the bunker.
11. The term „spontaneous combustion‟ has been mentioned in the insurance policy under the ADD ON COVERS as follows : -
"SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION Policy may be extended to cover the above subject to following endorsement wordings:
In consideration of the payment by the Insured to the Company of additional premium of Rs.12,600.00, the Company agrees notwithstanding what is stated in the printed exclusions of this policy to the contrary that the insurance by (items) of this policy shall extend to include loss or damage by fire only of or to the property insured caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion."
As per case of the complainant itself the spontaneous combustion occurred when the rain water entered in the bunker and came into contact with the sponge iron stocked therein, whereas the above term mentioned in the policy clearly envisages that the coverage of the policy was extended through add-on coverage of loss or damage by fire only of or to the insured property caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion but the loss due to rain was not covered. There was no any evidence to show that spontaneous combustion was caused due to any self-ignition, fire or weathering only the reason as stated in the complaint was that due to heavy storm the sheet of the shed above the bunker blown away hence the sponge iron stock got damaged due to Dismissed Page 9 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
coming into contact with rain water, but the rainwater is not the covered peril under the insurance policy in question.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon judgement dated 09.04.2009 of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002 between New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Kumar and judgements of Hon‟ble National Commission in Original Petition No.253 of 1999 between M/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd. Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 10.12.2004 and in Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2007 between Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 06.01.20015, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Oceanic Solvent Industries, in First Appeal No.1595 of 2017 decided on 22.11.2017 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Oil & Animal Food Industry, First Appeal No.20 of 2007 decided on 31.07.2012 but the principle laid down in those cases are not applicable in the facts of the instance case as they have different set of facts. In the case of Murli Agro (supra) however the spontaneous combustion has been discussed in detail, but in that case the spontaneous combustion occurred due to auto heating of molasses which burnt and solidised. In that case there was opinion given by the National Chemical Laboratory which was quoted by the Surveyor in his report, which was inter alia to the effect that the damage was caused by natural heating due to high temperature at day time the soya material absorbed heat and transferred towards central portion and creating high temperature at the middle portion of silo which could burn the volatile oil content of soya seeds. In the Surashtra Chemicals (supra) case the company remained closed for about six months and when the plant was reopened it was noticed by the employees that some stock of coal and ignite had got Dismissed Page 10 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
diminished/ destroyed. But the facts of present case is different and even if for the sake of arguments the story of complainant is believed that the sheet of the shed was uprooted due to storm and heavy wind and consequently rain water entered to the stock of sponge iron which contaminated with the sponge iron and incident of spontaneous combustion occurred hence the principle laid down in Surashtra Chemicals (supra) case is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. This Commission in its recent judgement dated 15.03.2023 in Complaint Case No.CC/2018/50 between Agrawal Structure Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has dealt with the same issue in similar set of facts and in paragraph No.11 has held as under :-
"11. -------. There was no any evidence to show that spontaneous combustion was caused due to any self-ignition, fire or weathering only the reason shown and as stated by Mr. Sandeep Bhattacharya, President of the complainant also was that due to heavy rain the godown shed collapsed and stock of sponge iron got damaged due to coming into contact with rain water, which is not the covered peril under the insurance policy in question."
13. So far as the report of surveyor is concerned learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgement in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) whereas Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr, IV (2021) CPJ 1 (SC), has discussed the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) also and has come to the conclusion that in paragraph No.38 as under : -
"38.------. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop".
In the facts of the instant case, so far as observations and opinion given by the surveyor is concerned we do not find any reason to deviate Dismissed Page 11 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
from the observations of the surveyor in the facts of the present case as no cogent evidence is adduced by the complainant in contrary or to question the integrity, honesty or adequacy in the quality, skill and nature of duties and responsibilities of the Surveyor. Hence, there is no question to doubt the report of the Surveyor.
14. Copy of letter of repudiation of the claim has been filed by the opposite parties as Exhibit OP-5, in which on the basis of survey report of Mr. Rajiv Dausage the observation has been mentioned as under : -
"1. The rain water has directly come in touch with the stock since the sheet has not uprooted due to storm, the velocity of wind was 4-9 kilometer which established that the rain water has entered directly from the sides where the GI Sheets were not there. The insured material is not stored in the proper shed which is to be rusted from the sides and the top roof, it is subject matter of gross negligence."
Thus, we are of the considered view that as claimed by the complainant itself and the observation of the surveyor also the loss has occurred due to rain water which entered into the sponge iron stock and not due to own fermentation or natural heating. The surveyor at the time of inspection of the insured site on 14.04.2018 recorded statement of Mr. Ritesh Jha, who was posted as Manager in the complainant who has also stated that the loss has occurred due to rain water. As per case of the complainant due to spontaneous combustion caused by rain water the loss has occurred and it is not the case that the spontaneous combustion occurred due to own fermentation, natural heating or ignition and indisputably rain water is not the insured peril under the policy in question hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the insurance company on this ground.
Dismissed Page 12 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
15. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon judgement of Hon‟ble National Commission in Giridhar Sampat Lanjewar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2021) CPJ 73 (NC); Jaisri Mines Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., II (2009) CPJ 123 (NC); Guinea Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 95 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijya Srinivasa Cotton Co., III (2009) CPR 389 (NC); Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., III (2010) CPJ 339 (NC); IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Beena Raghav, III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mehta Wool Store, 2008 NCJ 82 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar, I (2016) CPJ 555 (NC) and argued that the complainant itself was negligent in maintenance of the sheds and keeping the stock of the sponge iron and in such situation the Hon‟ble National Commission in Girdhar Sampat Lanjewar (supra) case held the repudiation of claim justified. He has also argued that report of the surveyor is an evidence and to be given importance and weightage in absence of overwhelming evidence to contrary as held by Hon‟ble National Commission in Mehta Wool Store (supra), Pentagaon Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This issue has already been discussed hereinabove in the light of judgement in Khatema Fibres Ltd. (supra).
16. So far as the allegation of the complainant that samples were not taken in presence of the complainant and were not properly taken from upper portion of stack of sponge iron is concerned in this regard we have minutely gone through the survey report and the test reports of all the samples of Industrial Solutions. In the survey report at page No.3 at Sr. Dismissed Page 13 of 14 Complaint No.: M/s. Gagan Resources Private Limited Date of Pronouncement:
CC/19/18 Vs. 30/05/2023 The United India Insurance Co. Limited & Anr.
No.7 under the heading „Position At The Time Of Survey‟ it has been mentioned by the surveyor that : -
"The stock which is said to be effected as per insured was shown to undersigned and the samples were drawn. There were four samples collected :
(a) Sample of Char + sponge iron (from the bottom portion of stack)
(b) Sample of Rear side stack of sponge iron.
(c) Sample of Char + sponge iron (from the upper portion of stack)
(d) Sample of Char + sponge iron.(Fresh)"
Test reports of all the four samples have also been filed along with the survey report and on the basis of all the four samples the surveyor has calculated the damaged values. In the Sample-A Char + sponge iron (from the bottom portion of stack) the Fe M value was found 75.18% and in Sample-B, Rear side stack of sponge iron the Fe M value was 72.05%, Sample C Char + sponge iron (from the upper portion of stack) was found as Ash, no sponge iron was found in this sample, it was purely found as char. In the fourth Sample D Char + sponge iron (Fresh) the Fe M value was found 80.57% calculating the average Fe M value of sample A and B and comparing Fe M value of the Sample D it was found that damaged values are only 6.95%. From this analysis and tests reports of the samples and the mention of this fact that the stock which was said to be affected as per the insured was shown to the surveyor and the samples were drawn, we have no doubt in our thoughtful mind that samples were property taken in presence of the representative(s) of the complainant company and from different portion / layers of the stack. There is no reason to disbelieve either the test reports or the opinion of the surveyor based on his analysis of test reports of Industrial Solutions.
17. Thus, for the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in this complaint and the same is dismissed. No order as to cost. (Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Gopal Chandra Shil) (Pramod Kumar Varma) President Member Member /05/2023 /05/2023 /05/2023 Pronounced On: 30th May 2023 Dismissed Page 14 of 14