Delhi District Court
Grant Thornton Bharat Llp vs Mr. Hemant Singh on 14 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV JAIN,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. Sanjeev Jain, District Judge
(Commercial Courts)-01
CS (COMM)729/2019
In the matter of:
Grant Thornton Bharat LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership,
Through its Authorized Representative
Sh. Sanjay Mehta
Reg. Office: L-41, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001. .... Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Hemant Singh,
Proprietor of,
Dorothee Lights,
402, MG Road,
Ghitorni, Opp. Metro Pillar No.117,
New Delhi-110030 ....Defendant.
Date of filing : 17.12.2019
Arguments advanced on : 28.10.2021
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 14.12.2021
Appearance: Sh. Ajay Kumar Talesara, Sh. Ambar Kamruddin and
Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocates for the Plaintiff.
Sh.A.K. Singh and Sh. Dilip Kumar, Advocates for
the Defendant.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 1 of 26
Civil Suit For Recovery of an Amount of Rs.5,77,887/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
Seventy Seven Thousand Eight Hundred And Eighty Seven) alongwith
Damages, Pendente Lite And Future Interest @18% Per Annum
Judgment
1.Case of the plaintiff:-
1.1. As disclosed in the plaint, plaintiff is a Limited Liability Partnership (inshort 'LLP') duly registered under the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008, having its registered office at L-41, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. The present suit has been filed on behalf of plaintiff through its authorized representative Mr. Sanjay Mehta who has been duly authorized vide Authority Letter dated 27.11.2019 by the plaintiff.
1.2. Defendant is in the business of decorative lightning and Italian furniture. Being influenced by the reputation of defendant in the field, plaintiff approached the defendant for installation of lights in its office at 604, 605 and 606, 6 th Floor, World Mark 2, Asset Area No.8, Delhi Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 (in short referred as 'the premises').
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 2 of 26 1.3. According to the plaintiff, on 19.01.2018, defendant proposed a quotation to the plaintiff. After various assurances, representations and promises made by the defendant, plaintiff issued purchase order dated 23.01.2018 pertaining to the said quotation of Rs.5,77,887/-. As per the purchase order defendant was required to supply and install the lights with fixtures at the premises of the plaintiff with desired specifications and quantity mentioned in purchase order. 1.4. As per admitted case of parties, in accordance with purchase order dated 23.01.2018, plaintiff made the entire payment to defendant by 29.01.2018.
1.5. Vide email dated 05.02.2018, plaintiff inquired from the defendant about the current position of work and questioned about the status of balance shades, alternate support mechanism for pendant lights and IP ratings for the LED lights and other fixtures as the packaging did not mention any make/rating, but the defendant did not respond to the said email.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 3 of 26 1.6. According to plaintiff, after looking at the incomplete/unprofessional work done by the defendant, plaintiff sent another email dated 12.02.2018 and requested the defendant to respond to their email dated 05.02.2018. Plaintiff also asked the defendant to confirm site visit by the team of defendant to discuss the sway movement in pendant lights as the installation of light fixtures were critical and needed immediate attention.
1.7. Upon receiving the email dated 12.02.2018 from the plaintiff, defendant visited the site (premises) on 12.02.2018. Defendant sent an email on the same date i.e. 12.02.2018 to plaintiff and submitted a report stating about the status of light which was was not properly fixed and requested the plaintiff to provide feedback of the same, so that more lights, as agreed in the purchase order may be installed. 1.8. In response to email dated 12.02.2018 of defendant, plaintiff sent the feedback vide email dated 13.02.2018 and specifically mentioned that defendant would be responsible regarding sway movement of pendant light.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 4 of 26 1.9. According to the averments of the plaintiff, due to unprofessional work by the defendant, the employees and other people felt the electric shock due to the faulty installation of the lights and fixtures by the defendant. Plaintiff vide email dated 19.02.2018, conveyed the same to the defendant and asked the defendant to complete the pending work by 23.02.2018, otherwise, plaintiff would cancel the purchase order and seek the full refund of the payment already made to the defendant. In response to the said email, defendant agreed to send his people to the plaintiff's office vide email dated 20.02.2018 and assured the plaintiff that wire changing work will be initiated after the review of the installations. 1.10. Further, it is stated in the plaint that one of the pendants for the tree and glass pendant fell on its own and this fact was informed to defendant by plaintiff vide email dated 21.02.2018 and 22.02.20218.
Vide email dated 26.02.2018, plaintiff conveyed the defendant regarding their visit to the site and reminded the defendant that they agreed to remove all the lights as a matter of safety. Further it was mentioned in the email that defendant will refund 50% of the amount already paid to the defendant till the defendant is able to come up CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 5 of 26 with a solution about safe installation of lights. Again, defendant was asked to provide a certificate of testing, certifing that the fixtures provided by defendant were as per specification i.e. IP67 rating, as agreed by parties in the purchase order.
1.11. Plaintiff set up the case that there was deficiency in the quality of product/goods supplied by the plaintiff which were not as per the specifications of purchase order and there was poor and unprofessional workmanship which resulted in removal of lights. On the ground of quality of product and deficiency in services in respect of installation, plaintiff has prayed for recovery of the entire amount of Rs.5,77,887/- (paid by plaintiff to the defendant as advanced) along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 23.01.2018. Plaintiff has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakh for mental harassment and agony that plaintiff went through due to inconvenience caused by defendant. Plaintiff has also prayed for the cost of the suit.
2. Case of the defendant:
2.1. In written statement, it is alleged that suit is based on false and frivolous allegations and plaintiff has not approached the court with CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 6 of 26 clean hands. It is also alleged that suit has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Defendant has admitted the quotation submitted by him; the purchase order issued by the plaintiff;
the installation of lights and also admitted some of the email. Defendant has not denied the receipt of legal notice and reply submitted by the defendant.
2.2. In written statement, the main allegations about the deficiency in quality of goods and services provided by the defendant are denied. It is stated that goods were supplied as per specifications mentioned in the purchase order and there was no deficiency in the services of the defendant. Defendant has denied his liability towards the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant has also disputed the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that it is a case of deficiency of service and therefore, jurisdiction lies with the Consumer Forum.
3. In replication, plaintiff has denied the material averments of the written statement including preliminary objections and reiterated the case set up in the plaint and the documents filed by plaintiff. CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 7 of 26
4. On the basis of pleadings and material on record, following issues were framed vide order dated 09.11.2020.
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as it is related to the deficiency of service as alleged by defendant? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for concealment of facts by the plaintiff, if so its effects? OPD.
3. Whether the memorandum of understanding annexure R- 12 filed by plaintiff is a forged document, if so, its effects? OPD.
4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a suit amount, if so to what extent? OPP.
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the pendentlite and future interest, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP.
6. Relief, if any.
5. After framing of issues, matter was referred to mediation centre, but could not be settled between the parties.
6. The case management hearing was conducted on 07.01.2021, but due to lock-down on account of Covid-19 and various other reasons, it was modified vide orders dated 06.04.2021 and 24.08.2021.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 8 of 26
7. In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined PW Sh. Sanjay Mehta, who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 in examination-in-chief. PW-1 supported material averments of the case in his evidence and he was cross-examined in detail by ld. Counsel for defendant. PW-1 proved the following documents:
S. Document Exhibit Total No NO Pages 1 Authority letter of plaintiff Ex. PW1/1 1 2 Copy of LLP Certificate Ex. PW1/2 1 3 Copy of LLP Certificate Ex. PW1/2A 1 4 Copy of purchase order Ex. PW1/3 2 5. Copy of email dated 05.02.2018 Ex.PW-1/4 2 and 12.02.2018 6. Copy of email dated 13.02.2018 Ex.PW-1/5 1 7. Copy of photograph of the borken Ex.PW-1/6 1 glass pendant 8. Copy of emails dated 19.02.2018, Ex.PW-1/7 3 20.02.2018 and 22.02.2018 9. Copy of email dated 26.02.2018 Ex.PW-1/8 1 10. Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/9 5 05.03.2018 11. Copy of reply to legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/10 11 07.04.2018 12. True copies of emails shared Ex.PW-1/11 6 between the parties regarding signing of the MOU 13. True copy of MOU Ex.PW-1/12 5 14. Copy of reminder emails by Ex.PW-1/13 5 plaintiff CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 9 of 26 15. Copy of pre-litigation mediation Ex.PW-1/14 1 report dated 17.10.2019 16. Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Ex.PW-1/15 2 Evidence Act
8. In defence evidence, Sh. Hemant Singh, the Proprietor of defendant firm appeared in the witness box as DW-1. He tendered his affidavit as DW-1/A in examination-in-chief and proved the following documents. DW-1 was cross-examined at length by ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
S. NO Document Exhibit
1 Testimonial dated 15.06.2015. Ex. DW1/1
(Objected to- Original
may be file within four
days by way of hard
copy)
2 Proforma Invoice dated Ex. DW1/2
24.01.2018. (admitted document)
3 Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Ex. DW1/3
Act. (admitted document)
4 Tax Invoice dated 31.01.2018. Ex. DW1/4
(admitted document)
9. I have heard ld. Counsels for the parties, carefully gone through the material on record and considered the written submissions filed by CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 10 of 26 the parties.
10. Issue-wise discussion is as follows:
Issue no.1 "Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as it is related to the deficiency of service as alleged by defendant? OPD"
11. In written statement it was alleged by defendant that suit is related to the allegations of deficiency in service and therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. It was stated that Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction in the matter. Onus of this issue was upon the defendant. Nothing material was stated by the witness on this issue.
11.1. As per section 2 (c) (XVIII) agreement for sale of goods or products for services is included within the definition of "Commercial disputes" under Commercial Courts Act 2015. There is no dispute that case of the plaintiff is based on supply of goods and therefore, provisions of sale of goods act are attracted. The another aspect of plaintiff's case is deficiency of services. Both these aspects are CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 11 of 26 squarely covered with in the definition of "Commercial dispute"
under Sub-section (VIII) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act. 11.2. In my view, the defendant has failed to established its case in respect of the issue and in view of definition of "Commercial dispute", the subject matter of the suit is squarely covered within the jurisdiction of this Court.
11.3. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.2.
"Whether the suit is bad for concealment of facts by the plaintiff, if so its effects? OPD"
12. The onus of this issue was also upon the defendant. In written statement, it was alleged that plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has filed false and frivolous suit. The suit of the plaintiff is based on the documents i.e. quotation submitted by plaintiff, the purchase order issued by the plaintiff, the emails exchanged between the parties, the legal notice issued by plaintiff and its reply by the CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 12 of 26 defendant. From the evidence of witnesses, defendant has failed to point out any particular material fact which has been concealed by the plaintiff. In my view, there is no evidence in support of the claim of the defendant to prove concealment of facts.
12.1. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.3.
Whether the memorandum of understanding annexure R-12 filed by plaintiff is a forged document, if so, its effects? OPD.
13. In respect of the said document, the claim of the plaintiff is that memorandum of understanding was prepared, but later on defendant did not came forward to sign the same. The stand of the defendant is that defendant had never been agreed to the memorandum of understanding by the plaintiff. Admitted fact from both the sides is that memorandum of understanding is the unsigned document. In any case, this document cannot be relied on either way as it has not been agreed or signed by any party. In order to prove the allegations of CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 13 of 26 filing of forged document, it is imperative to prove the essential ingredients of forgery which include the malafide intention. The stand of the plaintiff is that memorandum of understanding was prepared but it was not signed by the defendant and defendant has also stated that he never agreed for the said memorandum of understanding. In these facts, it cannot be said that plaintiff was intending to draw any undue advantage from the said document or to cause any undue loss to the defendant with malafide intention. The position would have been different if signatures of one or other party or contents of documents would have been forged but that is not the case here. In my view, there is nothing on record or in the testimony of witness to accept the allegations of forgery in producing the memorandum of understanding by the plaintiff.
13.1. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.4 Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a suit amount, if so to what extent? OPP.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 14 of 26
14. Plaintiff has claimed recovery of the advance payment of Rs.5,77,887/- made by plaintiff to the defendant. Further plaintiff has claimed for the relief of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation from the defendant for mental harassment and agony caused to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is based mainly on two aspects. First is that goods supplied by the defendant were not in accordance with the specifications mentioned in purchase order and were not as per the quality suitable for outdoor lightening. The second is related to the deficiency in services provided by defendant in installation of lights and fixtures.
14.1. The main contention on the part of defendant is that there is no document on record to show that installation of lights were to be carried out by the defendant; that no payment was made to the defendant for installation of lights; that IP67 rating was only for its product i.e. Red Strip lights, which is mentioned on the packaging box and no separate certificate is being issued by the manufacturer. Further arguments of the defendant is that warranty of goods is only against manufacturing defects of goods and strip lights as per purchase order. In substance, ld. Counsel for defendant argued that CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 15 of 26 firstly as per purchase order, installation of lights was not the responsibility of the defendant and the goods were supplied by the defendant as per specification mentioned in purchase order. 14.2. Let us examine the first aspect about the responsibility of installation of lights by the defendant. In quotation or purchase order, admittedly nothing has been mentioned about the installation of lights. It is admitted case of parties that on the basis of quotation issued by the defendant, purchase order issued by the plaintiff and after receiving the full price in advance, the lights were supplied by the defendant. The perusal of written statement and emails Ex.PW- 1/4, Ex.PW-1/5, Ex.PW-1/7 and Ex.PW-1/8 makes it clear that defendant has never taken the stand that installation of lights was not the responsibility of the defendant. Even in reply to legal notice Ex.PW-1/10, which is admitted document, this stand was never taken. The plea has been taken for the first time at the stage of evidence. In my opinion, parties cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond the pleadings as this defence was never taken in pleadings. Defendant cannot take this plea for the first time at the stage of evidence. On the other hand for the sake of arguments, we leave aside the technical CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 16 of 26 aspect of pleadings, it is admitted case of defendant that lights were supplied and installed at the site by the defendant, though it has not been mentioned in purchase order and there is no record to show any payment to the defendant on account of installation of lights. The contentions of defendant cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, it was a commercial transaction between the parties. If there was no understanding between the parties for the work of installation of lights, in preponderance of probabilities defendant was not supposed to complete the work of installation merely on the request of plaintiff or only because of courtesy or as a matter of charity. Generally, in these types of contracts, apart from the terms and conditions of purchase orders, there is understanding between the parties for installation of lights / electrical goods etc. which can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. It is a time tested legal principle that persons may tell the lie but the circumstances cannot. If we go through the circumstances of this case reflected from the respective emails exchanged between the parties and proved on record, it is clear that since beginning till the end defendant has taken responsibility for installation of lights and thereafter removal of lights from the site CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 17 of 26 (after discussion with the plaintiff). In email Ex.PW1/4 dated 12.02.2018, defendant wrote to the representative of the plaintiff about his site visit, controlling the sway movement of lights, fixing of pendant, use of GI wires and further requested for the feedback by the plaintiff. In email dated 12.02.2018 on behalf of plaintiff Mr. Kartikay wrote to the defendant for confirmation about the site visit of the team of the defendant to discuss sway movements in lights and installation of fixtures. In email dated 05.02.2018, plaintiff asked the defendant to confirm about the status of balance shades for floor lamp; alternate support mechanism for pendant lights; and IP rating for items like as LED and other fixtures by mentioning that packaging does not mention any make/rating. Again the email Ex.PW-1/5, Ex.PW-1/7 and Ex.PW-1/8 mentioned about the automatic fell of pendant light, discussion between the parties and the removal of lights by the defendant at the request of the plaintiff. All these emails, legal notice Ex.PW-1/9 and reply to legal notice Ex.PW-1/10 clearly prove that in the entire process the work of installation of lights was undertaken by the defendant. Once defendant has taken the responsibility of installation, being a professional agency dealing with the sensitive issues of electric equipments/lights, it was responsibility of the CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 18 of 26 defendant to provide suitable and risk free services to the plaintiff. Defendant cannot take the plea that because he completed the work of installation of lights without any clause in the purchase order or additional charges, he is not responsible for any deficiency in the installation of lights. The testimony of PW-1, DW-1 and the documents proved on record clearly establish that it is the admitted case that pendent fell automatically and complaints were made by plaintiff to the defendant. It is also admitted case of both the parties that lights were removed at the request of plaintiff by the defendant himself and were kept at a location in the premises of the plaintiff. The affidavit of DW-1 clearly mentioned that lights were removed on account of safety issue by the defendant at the request of plaintiff. This part of testimony of the defendant which is corroborated from the emails makes it clear that there was a safety issue in installation and therefore, a request was made by the plaintiff and accordingly, lights were removed by the defendant. It is the case of none of the parties that once lights were removed by defendant, defendant had taken any further step for re-installation of lights by giving any suitable solution for safety measures. The testimony of witnesses prove that in installation of lights there was safety issue and after CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 19 of 26 removal of lights it was never reinstalled by the defendant or used by the plaintiff. These aspects of the matter without any doubt established the deficiency of service on the part of the defendant in respect of installation of lights.
14.3. The other disputed aspect is that the lights provided by defendant were not suitable in quality for out door fittings and the same were not as per specifications mentioned in purchase order. 14.4. The plea of the defendant is that IP 67 rating was mentioned in purchase order only in respect of one product i.e. LED strip lights and IP rating are being mentioned on the packaging box itself. Further it is stated that no separate certificate is being issued by the manufacturer in respect of the IP Rating. Ld. Counsel for the defendant had argued that the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that lights provided by defendant were not of IP rating 67 and in this regard plaintiff has not produced any packaging box before the court. The emails provided on record clearly reflect that defendant has raised the issue of IP ratings and certifications in more than one email, but defendant did not satisfactorily answer to show the IP ratings of the products. Further, CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 20 of 26 once it was proved by plaintiff that goods were not as per ratings mentioned in purchase order, the onus shifted upon the defendant to establish that goods supplied by him were as per the specification. In this regard, defendant has also not produced either any packaging of the goods to show IP rating or any separate certificate from the manufacturer. DW-1 stated that he was not the manufacturer of the goods but no where disclosed the name and details of the manufacturer. Neither any document was summoned from the manufacturer nor manufacturer or his representative was summoned as a witness to prove that goods produced by the manufacturer were bearing the IP ratings claimed by the defendant. It is established principle of law that once both the parties have led their evidence the technical aspect of onus of proof lose its significance. The onus ultimately lies on a party who is going to fail to prove a relevant fact in support of the case or the defence. Keeping in view the above discussion, in balance of probabilities, plaintiff has also established that the goods were not as per specification i.e. IP rating mentioned in the purchase order. Therefore, on this count also there is a deficiency of service on the part of the defendant.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 21 of 26 14.5. It is admitted case of both the parties that plaintiff is a private limited company which gave the order to defendant for purchase of lights at its office premises which were required for outdoor area. The lights in outdoor require safety measures otherwise it may cause major lose of life or the property. In balance of probabilities, it cannot be said that plaintiff could be benefited in any way by rejecting the goos supplied by the defendant. The bonafide of the plaintiff are reflected from the fact that advance payment was made before the supply of goods. In my opinion, in ordinary course of events, there could not be any malafide on the part of the plaintiff to find unnecessary faults in the goods or the workmanship of the defendant without any valid reason. On the other hand, defendant claimed itself as a professional agency of reputation and therefore, it was excepted from the defendant to take remedial steps about the safety and re- installation of the lights which were not taken care of by the defendant. Ultimately, plaintiff could not use the benefit of lights provided by the defendant even for a week and the defendant did not care to provide services as per the terms of purchase order. In view of the above discussion, in preponderance of probabilities, in my view plaintiff has successfully established its claim for the refund of price CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 22 of 26 of the goods to the tune of Rs.5,77,887/-.
14.6. Plaintiff has also claimed Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental harassment or agony caused to the plaintiff. The case of mental harassment and agony for the purpose of damages has not been proved from the documents or the testimony of PW-1. In fact, PW-1 has stated nothing to establish the manner and extent of mental harassment and agony to justify the claim of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the claim of Rs.2 lakhs on account of damages.
14.7. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5 Whether plaintiff is entitled for the pendentlite and future interest, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP.
15. Plaintiff has claimed the pendente lite and future interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 23.01.2018.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 23 of 26 15.1. Under section 34 of CPC it is provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there in no contractual rate, the rate at which money is lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to the commercial transactions.
15.2. Plaintiff has not set up his case (in accordance with amended provision of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of Commercial Courts Act 2015) to justify the claim of interest @18% per annum. Admittedly, the transaction between the parties was a commercial transaction. Keeping in view, the prevalent rate of interest in the nationalized banks and commercial market, the interest of justice will be served if plaintiff be allowed pendant-lite and future interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 23.01.2018 till the filing of the suit, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the same rate on the decreetal amount from the date of decree till the actual realization of the decreetal amount.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 24 of 26 15.3. Plaintiff has also claimed the cost of the suit. It has been established that defendant failed to pay the amount despite service of notice. Therefore, in my opinion, defendant himself is responsible for the cost of the litigation to the extent of court fee and lawyers fee etc. as per rules. In my view plaintiff is accordingly entitled for the cost of litigation against the defendant.
Relief:-
16. In view of the above discussions, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.5,77,887/- (Rupees five lakhs, seventy seven thousand, eight hundred and eighty seven only) along with interest @9% per annum from 23.01.2018 till the date of filing of the suit, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and on the decreetal amount from the date of decree till actual realization of the decreetal amount. Cost of the suit is awarded to the extent of the court fee, advocate's fee and other legal expenses as per rules.
17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 25 of 26
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court (Sanjeev Jain)
on this 14th day of December, 2021 District Judge (Commercial Courts)-01
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
The order contains 26 pages all checked and signed by me. CS (COMM). 05/2019 Page 26 of 26