State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Vasu Meltplast Pvt Ltd vs O I C Ltd on 18 January, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/406/2018 ( Date of Filing : 03 Dec 2018 ) 1. M/S Vasu Meltplast Pvt Ltd Kanpur Nagar ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. O I C Ltd Kanpur Nagar ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 18 Jan 2024 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Complaint Case No.406 of 2018 M /s Vasu Metplast Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known As M/s Vasu Met Plast) having its registered Office at 6/31, Ranighat, Knapur Nagar, U.P.-208001 Through its authorized representative Sri Hanuman Prasad Kanodia s/o Late Sri R.d. Kanodia, R/o 026/21, Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar, U.P.-208001....Complainant. Versus 1- M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Commercial Branch Office-5, Having office at 133/242, Transport Nagar, (near Bakarganj Chauraha), Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-208023 2- Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Mall Road Branch, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 208001. ...Opp. parties. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member. Sri S.K. Sharma, Advocate for complainant. Sri T.K. Mishra, Advocate for the opposite party no.1. Sri S.M. Bajpai, Advocate for the opposite party no.2. Date: 1.2.2024 JUDGMENT
Per Sri Rajendra Singh, Member- This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the complainant is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic granules et cetera. The opposite party no.2 is a nationalised bank and had provided finance facility to the tune of ₹ 100 lakhs i.e. 1 crore as CC(H) & Book Debt and Term Loan of ₹ 50 lakhs to the complainant company. This loan was sanctioned on 13.07.2015. The opposite party no.1 is Nationalised Insurance Company having its branches all over India and one of its CBO (commercial branch office) is at transport Nagar, near Bakar Ganj Chauraha, Kanpur Nagar. It was communicated to the complainant that as per terms and conditions governing sanction of loan facility to setup new unit, commercial establishments, the factory go down, and machinery et cetera is required to be insured to secure the interest of financier bank as well as of complainant company.
The opposite party no.2, while financing the loan amount, got necessary documents and beside all the documents, hypothecation agreement of plant machinery, raw material finished goods et cetera were executed and it is pertinent to mention that the address of factory and go down et cetera of the complainant company was mentioned as Industrial Plot no B-4, Site-II, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Rania, Kanpur Dehat. The opposite party no.2, Punjab National Bank besides its banking business, was/is also appointed as Corporate Agent of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 used to provide insurance policies that two different customers on behalf of and for opposite party no.1 i.e. M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Since there was need of insurance policy to cover the risk of financier bank as well as the complainant company, hence opposite party no.2, who was the corporate agent of opposite party-1, arranged the issue of Fire and Special Peril Policy having validity w.e.f. 08.09.2015 to 07.09.2016 from opposite party - 1. The policy bond was issued by opposite party - 1 from Their Kanpur Nagar Office. In the insurance policy proposal for, opposite party no.2 by inadvertence mentioned the wrong address of complainant company factory/site as 31-34 Sherpur Taraunda, Rania, Kanpur Dehat. It was either due to clerical mistake or due to oversight.
It is pertinent to mention that before issuance of insurance policy by opposite party no.1 to the complainant company factory premises at plot no.B-4 Site-II, UPSIDC, Industrial Area,Rania ,Kanpur Dehat was done by the agent of the opposite party no.1 and on the basis of the internal inspection and site visit by opposite party no.1, the above said insurance policy being Fire and Special Perils Policy no. 222205/11/2016/403 dated 08.09.2015 was issued. On 04.11.2015, opposite party no.2 came to know about the said mistake in the insurance policy issued by opposite party - number one and immediately sent a letter for correction of complainant companies site address to the CBO of opposite party no.1 at transport Nagar. The said letter was received by the opposite party no.1 and the receiving endorsement was also done by the opposite party no.1 on the same date that is 04.11.2015.
Unfortunately due to short circuit in halogen light fixed at the go down of material of the complainant company, the fire took place on 05.11.2015 at about 7 AM in the morning. The intimation of fire was given to the opposite party -1 on 05.11.2015 itself and to the fire extinguishing department. Firemen reached the export at 8:26 AM along with their fire tenders. Due to highly inflammable products being stored in go down of the complainant company, the intensity of fire rose very much and caused severe loss to the tune of ₹ 40 lakhs approximately. Besides loss of plant, machinery, goods, raw material et cetera, the complainant company also faced loss of business for a long time which is notionally valued to the tune of ₹ 2 lakhs per month from the date of fire till actual date of payment and thus the complainant is also entitled for this amount. The information regarding fire has been given to the opposite party no.1 on 05.11.2015, the opposite party no.1 with the malafide intention to escape from the liability to pay towards the loss suffered by the complainant company due to fire, issued one letter to opposite party no.1 on 05.11.2015 stating that they had not received any letter from opposite party no.2 for change/correction of site address of complainant company on 04.11.2015 and further stated that the wrong endorsement on letter dated 04.11.2015 was made by them and also stated that the said letter dated 4.11.2015 was received by them i.e. opposite party no.1 on 05.11.2015 and thereafter new insurance policy cover note was issued by the opposite party no.1 on 05.11.2015 itself mentioning the duration of policy from 12:52 on 05.11.2015 to midnight of 07.09.2016.
The fire extinguishing department in the course of their officials duty, assessed the loss to the tune of ₹ 37 lakhs plus ₹ 1 lakh and submitted their detailed report which includes cause of fire, the number of fire tender 'the time taken for fire extinguishing et cetera and this report is sufficient to assess the extent of fire and consequential loss et cetera. The complainant company submitted their claim with opposite party no.1, who for survey, deputed surveyor Mr. R.C. Bajapai. The complainant has submitted a claim of ₹ 4,968,030/- for the loss incurred. The surveyor forced to the complainant to deduct the value of service, hence the complainant was forced to amend the claim to ₹ 3,924,298/-. Thereafter the surveyor vide his report dated 14.03.2016 assessed the loss to the tune of ₹ 1,806,743.14/-only. Mr. R.C. Bajapai, the surveyor, in his report also made observation that since in the insurance document wrong address was given, the claim of the complainant's company deserves to be repudiated. On the basis of reports submitted by the surveyor, the opposite party-1 repudiated the claim of the complainant's company on 07.12.2016 with mala-fide intention and to escape from the liability. It was repudiated on the pretext that different address of complainant company was given in the policy cover note.
In the insurance policy proposal form, opposite party -2 mentioned the address of the complainant company as 'Plot no.31-34, village, Sherpur Tanaunda, Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat while the fire broke out in factory premises of the complainant situated at "Plot no B-4 Site-II, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Rania, Kanpur Dehat" and the same is actual place from where the business of the complainant company was going on and plant and machinery was fixed. Due to mistake and negligence of the opposite parties, as is evident from letter dated 19.05.2016 written by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1, the policy in question was issued giving the wrong address 'Plot no 31-34, village- Sherpur Tanaunda, Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat'. It is pertinent to mention that the cover note of the aforesaid policy was never given to the complainant company and was kept by the opposite party no.2 with themselves and. On 04.11.2015 , the opposite party no.2 themselves issued letter to opposite party no.1 for the arrangement of address given in the cover note. The said letter was received by the opposite party no.1 on 04.11.2015 itself, which was later on denied by the opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 05.11.2015.
Besides this, the opposite party no.2 wrote several other letters dated 11.04.2016 07.11.2016, 05.12.2016, 22.12.2016, and 03.01.2017 to opposite party no.1 in which they have confirmed the loss and also verified that factory is at "Plot no B-4 Site-II, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Rania , Kanpur Dehat". The opposite party no.1 has no occasion to denial or refute the said letter but they did so to escape from liability of payment under the insurance policy. The complainant had intimated a loss of ₹ 60 lakhs to opposite party -1 the insurance company. After negotiation the surveyor of the company reduced to ₹ 4,968,030/- ₹ 1,043,732/- as assessed value so the value comes to ₹ 2,924,298/-. The claim accepted by the surveyor was of ₹ 3,924,298 -. The opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice in denying and repudiated the claim of the complainant for no fault of the complainant. The aforesaid insurance policy was taken by the bank in the name of the complainant and premium was debited by opposite party no.2 bank from the account of the complainant and paid to the opposite party no.1, with the intention to cover the associated risks of the factory premises of the complainant. However, the same is denied and repudiated by the opposite parties and no claim amount is being paid by either of the opposite parties to the complainant.
The complainant comes under the definition of consumer. Since the total risk covered by way of aforesaid policy issued by opposite party no.1 for the complainant company stock, plants, machinery et cetera was of ₹ 1.5 crore. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the complainant.
The letter dated 07.12.2016 repudiating claim of the complainant company by the opposite party no.1 be declared illegal, null and void.
The opposite parties be directed to pay ₹ 3,924,298/- jointly or severally or vicariously to the complainant along with 18% interest per annum from the date of fire, i.e. 05.11.2015 till actual date of payment, for the loss incurred due to fire in the factory of complainants, duly insured under insurance policy.
The litigation cost of ₹ 1 lakh be directed to be paid to the complainant by the opposite parties.
Any Other Relief May Be Granted to the Complainant, Which This Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The opposite party no.2 has filed his written statement in which he has stated that the insurance is necessary to protect the loan facility under the terms and condition of the loan documents. The documents on record relating with the grievance of the complainant itself proved that there is no mistake on the part of the answering party and the allegations against the answering opposite party are false and without any documentary evidence. The answering opposite party has supported the complainant with clear declarations of the said mistake on the part of the opposite party no.1 and no documentary evidences available to prove any mistake on the part of the answering opposite party. The complainant failed to establish his allegations on the part of the answering opposite party. It is stated that without any documentary evidence on record to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, the complainant failed to observe the related documents are there and wrongly trying to shift the liability towards the answering opposite party. The co-operation of the answering opposite party was available to the complainant on every stage, just to secure the public money received by the complainant as loan facility and the support was not available to the complainant due to any fragile/delicate status of the answering opposite party.
The complainant is a private limited company and in the business of manufacturing of plastic granules et cetera as admitted in the complaint hence, the complaint is of commercial nature with the facility of cash credit account and as such the instant complaint is beyond jurisdiction and is liable to dismissed. The complainant is not consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint has been filed with the Malafide intentions and without any documentary evidence against the answering opposite party, and on the basis of false and wrong grounds which are also not duly supported by the documentary evidence against the answering opposite party.
The opposite party no.1 could not file his written statement within the time prescribed under the act and the court has already observed the time limit for filing the written statement has been passed. The counsel of the opposite party-1 argued to take the written statement on record but in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment mentioned hereinbelow, WS can be taken on record.
A Constitutional Bench (5 JJ) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the Case of New India Assurance Complainant Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, Civil Appeal no.10941-10942 of 2013 along with other many related Civil Appeals ( judgment 04.03.2020) held ;
"The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act").
The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days,should be read as mandatory or directory ; i.e., whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days.
The second question which is referred is as to what would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.
The first question was referred by a two Judges bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No (s) 10831084 of 2016, M/S Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Grand Venezia Buyers Association ( Reg), the relevant portion of which is as under :
"there is an apparent conflict between the decision of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited vs Corporation Bank [(2002)6 SCC 33], Kailash vs Nankhu [(2005)4 SCC 480] , Salem advocate Bar Association VS Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and J J Merchan &Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635)] and NIA Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage [ 2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as the power of the courts to extend time for filing of Written Statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decision take the view that the relevant provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written statement. The second line of decisions which are also of coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time for filing a reply there is no such power. Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgment. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five - Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two - Judge Bench ought to make a reference to a three - Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate benches That comprising three Judges a reference to 3 Judges may not suffice"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 41 of the judgement has held "To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that The District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complainant beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act ; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complainant by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complainant. "
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 40 of the judgment has held ".............. we may, however, clarified that the objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise permitted to be raised at any point later on defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy Redressal of consumer disputes."
[Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 has also the same time limit to file written statement. It is quoted hereinbelow ;
38. Procedure on admission of complaint -(1) the District Commission shall , on admission of a complaint, or in respect of cases referred for mediation on failure of the agreement by mediation proceed with such complaint.
(2) were the complainant relates to any goods, the discussion That shall -
(a) referral copy of the admitted complaint, within 21 days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by it ; ] According to section 49 of The Consumer Protection Act 2019, the provisions relating to complainants under section 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of complaint by the State Commission.
So in this case the written statement has been filed beyond the prescribed period as mentioned in section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per the act and as per the judgment of the only Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) this written statement is not liable to be taken on record so it will be not the part of the record.
In the case of ARN Infrastructure India Limited Vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh, SC (civil appeal diary no.31182/2023, Jt. dated 04.09.2023) the facts are as follows :
A complaint under original jurisdiction was filed before the NCDRC seeking return of deposit from the Opposite Parties. In the said case, the Opposite Parties did not file their Written Version within the statutory timeline prescribed. While so, at the time of hearing final arguments, the Opposite Parties entered appearance through an advocate and sought an adjournment to make final arguments in the case.
The NCDRC rejected the said request on the ground that the Written Version was not filed within the statutory period. The NCDRC allowed the complaint by hearing only the Complainant on merits. An application was filed by the Opposite Parties to recall the aforesaid order. The said application was also dismissed by the NCDRC against which a civil appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is under discussion here.
The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Opposite Parties are entitled to make final arguments even when the Written Version was not filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Opposite Parties have a right to make final arguments even if the Written Version was not filed. The Apex Court observed that hearing only the Complainant on merits when the Opposite Parties intended to make submissions is violative of the principles of natural justice.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. S. K. Sharma, learned counsel of opposite party no.1, Mr. T. K. Mishra and learned counsel of the opposite party no.2, Mr. S.M.Bajpai. We have perused the pleadings, evidences and documents on record.
First we come to see the policy issued on 05.11.2015 which is effective from 18:06 on 08.09.2015 to midnight of 07.09.2016. In this policy the address of complainant company factory/site as 31-34 Sherpur Taraunda, Rania, Kanpur Dehat has been mentioned. As per complainant, this address has been wrongly mentioned or has been entered due to mistake of fact while the correct address was plot number B-4 Site-II, UPSIDC, Industrial Area,Rania, Kanpur Dehat.
FROM 18.06 ON 08.09.2015 TO MIDNIGHT 07.09.2016 The complainant has argued that In the insurance policy proposal for, opposite party no.2 by inadvertence mentioned the wrong address of complainant company factory/site as 31-34 Sherpur Taraunda, Rania, Kanpur Dehat. It was either due to clerical mistake or due to oversight.
The complainant has argued that before issuance of insurance policy by opposite party no.1 to the complainant company factory premises at plot no.B-4 Site-II, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Rania, Kanpur Dehat was done by the agent of the opposite party-1 and on the basis of the internal inspection and site visit by opposite party-1, the above said insurance policy being Fire and Special Perils Policy no. 222205/11/2016/403 dated 08.09.2015 was issued. On 04.11.2015, opposite party-2 came to know about the said mistake in the insurance policy issued by opposite party no.1 and immediately sent a letter for correction of complainant companies site address to the CBO of opposite party-1 at Transport Nagar. The said letter was received by the opposite party-1 and the receiving endorsement was also done by the opposite party-1 on the same date that is 04.11.2015. It is also argued that Punjab National Bank issued a letter to the insurance company for the construction of the address and it has been received by the insurance company on 04.11.2015 as is clear from the receiving of the letter. There is signature of the company so it is clear that this letter of address change has already been sent and received by the insurance company on 04.11.2015 as is clear from the scanned letter hereinbelow.
REQUEST OF ADDRESS CHANGE DTD 04.11.2015 The counsel of the opposite party no.1 argued that due to inadvertence the date below the signature has been written as 04.01.2015 while this letter was received on 05.01.2015 and the insurance company has written a letter to Punjab National Bank on 05.11.2015 stating that due to confusion of date it was signed on 04.11.2015. It also stated that the request change letter has been received on 05.11.2015 and not on 04.11.2015 and the confusion of date is hereby rectified. However in this letter time has not been mentioned as to which time this letter was received. We have seen the receiving signature on the letter which has not been denied by the insurance company. The main argument of the insurance company is that, that the letter was actually received on 05.11.2015 but due to mistake of date 04.11.2015 has wrongly been written. This letter is scanned hereinbelow for ready reference.
INFORMATION REGARDING WRONG RCEIVING DATE ON ADDRESS CHANGE LETTER FROM 12.52 ON 05.11.2015 TO MIDNIGHT 07.09.2016 The insurance company thereafter issued fresh policy bond in which the date of enforcing the revised policy bond has been written from 12:52 on 05.11.2015 to midnight of 07.09.2016. The Punjab National Bank has written a letter to the insurance company on 19.05.2016 for expediting the insurance claim.
Thereafter on 07.12.2016, the insurance company informed the Branch manager, Punjab National Bank regarding repudiation of the insurance claim which letter is annexed hereinbelow.
REPUDIATION OF INSURANCE CLAIM ON 07.12.2016 Now the main bone of contention in this matter is regarding the date of change of address of complainants company premises. The insurance company has admitted that he received the change of address letter on 05.11.2015 but due to mistake the receiving authority mentioned the date as 04.11.2015 therefore the actual date is 05.11.2015 and not 04.11.2015. Once it has been admitted that the letter was received on 04.11.2015 and no letter has been issued on 04.11.2015 regarding the mistake of receiving date so it cannot be believed that this letter was received on 05.11.2015.
Now we see the survey report. Mr. R. C. Bajpai has submitted his report on 14.03.2016 in which he has assessed the loss as ₹ 2,659,994.40/- he had shown the adjusted loss as ₹ 1,806,743.14 /- and shown loss NIL. He has written in his report that at the time of loss the place of accident is not covered under the policy, therefore we are of the view that the insured claim is non-payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor, regarding claim bill, has stated that the value-added time of fire was ₹ 4,968,030/- and deductions for service has been mentioned as ₹ 1,043,732/- and amounts has been shown as Rs 39,24,298/-. He has further written that the fire was serious in nature and caused extensive damage to stock, building and plant and machinery. He has also written that the fire occurred in the raw material go down of the insured in which the maximum raw material was stored. Here it is admitted that the fire was so severe in nature that due to heat the pillar of the shed was bend. The surveyor has further written, "the insured has made a claim of ₹ 3,924,298/- against which we have passed a claim of ₹ 1,806,743.14/- after making all appropriate deductions while assessing the loss.
We have seen the report of Fire Brigade. The Fire Brigade in its report has said that the estimated loss according to SFO is ₹ 38 lakhs. So the Fire Brigade has assessed the estimated loss at ₹ 38 lakhs. The surveyor has assessed the estimated loss at ₹ 1,806,743.14/-. The first authority who reached the spot was Fire Brigade Department and he assessed the loss at ₹ 38 lakhs. It has become clear that the information regarding change of address has been received by the insurance company on 04.11.2015 and the fire broke out on 05.11.2015. The argument put forth by the Counsel of the insurance company is not acceptable regarding the change of date of address. So it is clear that the loss assessed by the Fire Brigade is up to the mark and it should have been awarded.
After considering all these facts we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get ₹ 38 lakhs from the insurance company towards the loss stock with interest at a rate of 10% from 05.11.2015 if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum from 05.11.2015 till the date of its actual payment. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.50,000.00 towards cost of the case. The complaint case is decided accordingly.
ORDER The complaint case is decided partially against the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay ₹ 38 lakhs to the complainant with interest at a rate of 10% from 05.11.2015 if paid within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case otherwise the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum from 05.11.2015 till the date of its actual payment. The opposite party no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant ₹ 50,000 towards cost of litigation.
If the order is not complied with within 30 days from the date of judgment of this complaint case, the complainant may file execution case before this court against the opposite party no.1.
The first charge on this amount shall be of the Opposite Party no.2 to the extent of the loan unpaid till the date of judgment.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to the Record-room. (Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Dated 1.2.2024 JafRi, PA I C-2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER