State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Karnavati Co Op Bank Ltd vs The Oriental Ins Co. on 21 December, 2020
1
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Complaint No. 62 of 2010.
The General Manager,
The Karnavati Co.op Bank Ltd.
Head office at 105, Radha Raman Complex,
Nr. Khodiyar Nagar, Ahmedabad. ... Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager ,
The Oriental Insural Comp . Ltd.
2 , First Floor, Shaijee House, B/h M. J. Library,
Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad - 380 006.
2. The Divisional Manager
The Oriental Ins. Comp.
3rd Floor, Shalin Bldg.,
New Patang Hotel,
Nehru Bridge End, Ellishbridge,
Ahmedabad - 380 006.
3. The Regional Manager
The Oriental Ins. Comp.
3rd Floor, Navjivan Press Bldg. Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad - 380 013. ...Opponents
Complainant- Learned advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi
Opponent- Learned advocate Mr. N. M. Sinroja
Coram : Justice V. P. Patel, President
Dr. J.G.Mecwan, Member
Order by Dr. J.G.Mecwan, Member
1. Short facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under: complainant is a co-operative bank registered under co- operative banking Act and having its branches at different places at Ahmedabad. The activity of the said bank governed 2 under Co-operative bank rules and regulations and bank regulations Act under the guideline of RBI.
Facts of the complaint.
2. The complainant submits that the complainant had obtained banker indemnity policy bearing policy no. 14160/48/2009/00308 for Rs. 1,25,00,000/- from opponent and complainant had also paid the premium to the tune of Rs. 1,18,498/-. It is the submission of complainant that as per rules bank had to carry out statutory audit and there was carried out accordingly.
2.1 It is submitted by the complainant that further endorsement on the banker's indemnity policy was required and therefore, complainant had paid extra premium for cash in safe for Rs. 50 lakhs and gross endorsement for cash in safe Rs. 75 lakhs and after due endorsement by paying extra premium the total sum assured comes to Rs. 3 Crore from the date of endorsement i.e from 26.9.08 to 30.4.09.
2.2 It is further submitted that the Bank had a strong room and that there are two vault of Steelage Make is kept in the said strong room out of which one vault is used daily cash (withdraw the cash from vault and again after banking hours the cash to be kept). The another vault is used for keeping new currency notes given by RBI including important files in the vault. The Branch Manager Bapunagar Branch of the Bank , Mr. Dilip Pathak and Cashier Mr. Nilesh Nimavat keep the keys of the vault and the both are responsible for the same and safe can be opened only by applying both the keys simultaneously.
2.3 It is the submission of the complainant that as per the norms the charted Accountant M/s Manoj Pandya and 3 Company appointed who has quarterly inspect the cash and such cash verification report dt. 5/01/2009 was given and submitted to the Bank and as per report of the safe vaults on dt. 5/1/2009 total Rs. 93,74,521.60/- cash on hand was lying with both the vaults. It is further submitted by complainant that as it was March ending, on 30/03/2009, the Branch Manager Shri Pathak and cashier Shri Nilesh Nimavat had opened the vault having new currency notes and they found 430 bundles less of Rs. 100/- i.e. Rs. 43 Lakhs was missing.
2.4 Therefore, immediately the General Manager of the Bank, Chairman and the Directors were informed about missing of cash of Rs. 43 lakhs. The Chartered Accountant M/s Manoj Pandya & Company had inspected and submitted their Report dt. 5/1/2009 and thereafter the vault in which new currency notes bundles were kept was not opened and therefore, the officer of the bank have also carried out investigation by asking the staff members of bank but they could not give any satisfactory clarification about the missing of Rs. 43 Lakhs. Hence, as the Branch Manager Mr. Pathak & Cashier Nilesh Nimavat both of them keeps the keys of the vault not only that they both are responsible to check and verify daily cash as per the books and on 30/3/2009 both Mr. Dilip Pathak, the Branch Manager and Mr. Nilesh Nimavat, cashier gave in writing to General Manager that the cash of Rs. 43 lakhs are Missing and or found short and thereby both Mr. Pathak and Mr. Nilesh Nimavat tried to escape from the liability and thereby both the employee i.e. Branch Manager, Mr. Dilipbhai and Cashier Mr. Nilesh Nimavat indulged into cheating and committed breach of trust with the complainant Bank and thereby they have also committed an offense under IPC. 2.5 It is the submission of the complainant that on 2/4/09 the complainant have lodged FIR in Odhav Police Station and 4 opponent insurance company was informed on 4.4.09 with full details of missing currency notes. The opponent insurance company did not respond and therefore the complainant has sent reminder which was received by opponent insurance company on 13/1/2010 and also second reminder dated 9/6/2010 was sent. Thereafter, the complainant bank has also served a legal notice to the opponent insurance company on 12/08/2010 but on 26/8/2010 the opponent insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground of conditions of policy no. 3, 4 and exception clause 13 (b) and 13 (h).
2.6 It is submitted by the complainant that the act of the opponent was absolutely arbitrarily with clear cut approach of unfair practice hence, the complainant has filed present consumer complaint before State Commission under the provision of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as the said act for the sake of brevity) for getting the claim amount which arbitrarily and wrongfully rejected by the opponent.
3. In the complaint the complainant has requested to allow the complaint and prayed for following terms.
(A) That the Hon'ble State Commission be pleased to admit and allow this complaint and direct the opp. Ins. Company to pay Rs. 43 lakhs as claim amount under the Bankers Indemnity Policy together with interest at the rate of 9% till the amount is paid by opp. Insurance company.
(B) That the Hon'ble State Commission be pleased to direct the opp. Ins. Company to pay Rs. 25,000/- being amount for compensation as the opp. has repudiated the claim wrongly and thereby indulged into unfair trade practice and deficient in rendering services. (C) The Hon'ble State Commission be pleased to direct the opp. Ins. Company to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of cost for filing this complaint.
54. The State Commission has admitted the complaint, notice was duly served to the opponent and Ld. advocate Mr. N. M. Sinroja, has filed his appearance for the opponent.
Defense of the opponent.
5. Opponent has filed written statement in which it has been mentioned that in pursuance to the claim intimation received from the complainant, the opponent company has appointed Mr. Bharat Pandya and Associates a license surveyor as per section 64 UM (2) of insurance Act, 1938 who has surveyed the claim in question in detail and assessed loss after his personal inspection and verification of the documentary evidence, books of account of complainant, police papers etc and according to his assessment Rs. 40,68,213/- was the loss caused to insured.
5.1 It is further mentioned that as per the findings of the surveyor the claim in question was not covered under the policy and not payable one due to exclusion clauses as referred in his report. As per the survey report due to gross negligence on part of complainant insured bank officials that is insured employee such loss occurred.
5.2 It is also mentioned in written statement of opponent that from the charge sheet and other evidence available on record loss in question was start occurring even prior to taking of policy from opponent company and therefore, as per terms of policy the same is not covered under the policy.
5.3 It is further mentioned that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the report of the surveyor the competent authority of the opponent has decided to repudiate the claim on various ground relying upon various condition of policy in question as mentioned in repudiation letter dated 26.8.10.
65.4 It is concluded in written statement that there is no deficiency of service, illegality or irregularity on the part of opponent insurance company while processing the claim of the complainant and same has been decided strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy being contract.
6. Evidence Produced by the complainant: We have gone through the following documents submitted by the complainant.
A. Policy of the insurance company, B. Endorsement schedule of the Insurance company, C. Terms and condition of banker's indemnity policy, D. FIR and charge sheet, E. revised claim form, F. legal notice dated 12.8.10 given by complainant to the opponent, G. repudiation letter dated 26.8.10 issued by opponent, H. claim intimation letter dated 4.4.09, I. reminder dated 9.6.10 issued to insurance company, J. survey report of Shri Bharat Pandya and associates, K. Statement of Bharat Pandya CA before Police authority, L. Statement of Mr. Rakesh Raviprasad Bhatt (Auditor of Chartered accountant firm) given before police authority, M. Copy of Affidavit of Chartered accountant Mr. Bharat Pandya dated 19/8/2011.
N. Order of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in criminal case No. 9/10, O. Appeal filed before City Session Judge.
7. Evidence produced by the opponent: NIL Proceeding before the State Commission:
8. As per record this complaint was withdrawn to file appeal before ombudsman of Insurance company and State 7 Commission has allowed withdrawn of complaint and order that the complainant should not be entitled to file any other complaint before State commission or before District Forum. Complainant has approached insurance ombudsman but pecuniary jurisdiction of ombudsman was Rs. 20 Lakhs whereas the claim of the complainant was Rs.43 lakhs and therefore, review application was filed before this State commission but that was rejected as commission did not have power to do review its own order. The complainant preferred writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and the same was dismissed hence, appeal was filed before the Hon'ble National Commission in which the order of the State Commission dated 28.2.13 was modified and State Commission was directed to restore the complaint on its original number and proceed for deciding the complaint on merits probably within 6 months subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by complainant in the Consumer legal Aid.
Argument of complainant:
9. Heard Ld. advocate Mr. V.M. Pancholi for the complainant and Mr. N. M. Sinroja, ld advocate for the opponent through video conference. We have gone through the evidence, documents produced by both the parties. We have perused the written statement filed by Mr. Sinroja for opponent insurance company and rejoinder filed by the complainant.
9.1 Ld. advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi for the complainant has submitted that Mr. Milind Kothari, has committed fraud when he was having charge as a head cashier during 2006-08. The police authority has prepared charge sheet against the said accused Milind Kothari, and criminal complaint was filed before court but vide letter dated 26.8.10 opponent has repudiated the claim of insured bank on the ground that the company shall not 8 be liable in respect of losses resulting wholly or partially from any negligence act or omission of insured employee.
9.2 It is also submitted by Ld. advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi, for the complainant that there is no breach of any condition at all and inspite of that the insurance company wrongly repudiated the claim with a view to avoid the liability of the claim amount and therefore, the repudiation by the opponent mentioning the conditions with clauses are totally irrelevant and there is no breach of conditions even including exception clause in as much as that the complainant bank has filed the claim strictly as per the contractual obligation and also policy condition a binding contract to both complainant and opponent insurance company and thereby the insurance company is bound to follow the policy conditions and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the claim amount.
Argument of opponent:
10. ld. advocate Mr. Sinroja for the opponent has submitted written arguments which is on record at page 166-175. It is the submission of the opponent that due to gross negligence on part of the officials of the complainant bank such loss occurred.
10.1 As per the submission of the opponent, police has filed charge sheet only against Mr. Milind P. Kothari who was working as a head cashier in Bapunagar Branch of insured bank during 2006-08 and during this period he has siphoned away the cash of bank systematically by winning confidence of branch manager hence, on the basis of charge sheet and other evidence on record it appears that the loss in question was started occurring even prior to taking of policy from opponent and hence, risk is not covered under the policy.
10.2 It is the submission of the opponent that Mr. Milind Kothari, was head cashier in Bapunagar Branch and he has 9 handed over the charge to Mr. Nilesh Nimavat on 13.12.2008 who appears to have not counted cash while taking charge from accused and thereafter, audit was done by Mr. Manoj Pandya on 5.1.09 in presence of accused though he was not a head cashier of said branch.
10.3 It is further submitted by opponent that all such occasions i.e. at the time of audit on 5.1.09 or in past audits and at the time of taking charge from accused neither Mr. Nimavat or Bank manager, nor auditor or his employees have not bothered to check the total cash and relied upon the accused and done their act on bare words of accused which resulted in loss.
10.4 It is the submission of opponent that the branch manager of said branch has not even bothered during this period to check and verify the total cash of said branch and not discharged his duty being a manager. So, all such persons including bank employees have remained negligent in their respective duties which resulted into loss and therefore as per exclusion clause of policy such loss is not covered under the policy.
10.5 It is further submitted by opponent that as per normal procedure of complainant bank, one key of safe remained with branch manager and one remained with head cashier i.e. accused unless both keys applied to safe in which cash was kept by bank, it could not have opened. It appears from evidence that the branch manager was negligent in his duty by handing over his key to accused and not bothered to see what happened with cash lying in two safes. Therefore, during the period between 2006-08, the accused has siphoned away huge money of bank. It is the submission of opponent that this loss could have been avoided by complainant bank had there been proper check by bank officials who admittedly remained gross negligent and due to their omission, such loss occurred.10
10.6 It is further submitted by opponent insurance company that after happening such loss to complainant bank the services of not only accused Mr. Milind Kothari was terminated but also services of branch manager Mr. Dilip Pathak as well as the then cashier Mr. Nilesh Nimavat of said branch were terminated. This itself prove the say of the opponent insurance company that such loss occurred due to gross negligence of said bank employees.
10.7 It is the submission of opponent that in view of the facts and circumstances and after going though the report of surveyor, the competent authority of opponent insurance company has decided to repudiate the claim on various grounds relying upon various conditions of policy in question as mentioned in repudiation letter dated 26/08/2010.
10.8 It is further submitted by the opponent that there is serious fraud committed by accused and when bank officials remained gross negligent which helped the accused to perpetuate fraud then complaint in question may not be adjudicated by this commission in a summary proceeding as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act having involved serious disputed question of facts and law therefore, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost and in the alternative the complaint may kindly be given back for presentation before appropriate Civil Court.
Merits of the case:
11. In the instant case the main contention taken by the opponent insurance company that due to negligence of bank employee Rs. 43 lacks was missing/lost and therefore, claim was repudiated under section 13 (b) and 13 (h) of policy terms and conditions. We have gone through the repudiation letter issued by opponent which is on record at page 31-33. For the 11 better understanding of the case reasons given for the repudiation of claim are reproduced below.
We regret to note that the Competent Authority has repudiated your above claim on following grounds ;
1) As per retroactive period of cover clause of policy, the loss does not fall within the purview of the policy. The clause reproduce as under;
(c) Retro-Active Period of Cover : The Company shall not be liable ;
i) For losses not discovered within the period of this insurance. ii) In the event of non renewal or cancellation of this policy, for losses not discovered within six calendar months next following the date of expiry on the date of cancellation as the case may be provided only that If there has been any other insurance in force during the said six calendar months whether effected by the insured or otherwise this policy shall not cover or contribute to any loss covered by such other insurance). (iii) for losses not sustained within a retroactive period not exceeding 2 years from the date of discovery of any such loss or losses. Provided that in such retroactive period the Insurance was continuously in force but in no event the Company shall be liable to pay any claim in respect of a loss or damage sustained prior to the Inception of the original Policy. Further, provided that losses which become payable under this clause shall be subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions of the policy currently in force on the date of discovery. As is ample clear from the documents submitted by you, and as par Investigation and verification by Shri Bharat N pandya, Authorized Surveyor, the exact dates of siphoning of money cannot be ascertained. As per police papers it has been established that such act of dishonesty has started from way back Jan. "06. However, till the discovery of loss on 30"
March, 2009 bank was not aware about any such loss. So, we cannot entertain the claim.
(2) Condition 3 of the policy states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to 2 safeguard the property insured against any accident, loss or damage and to secure all doors, windows and other openings and all safes strong rooms etc. In present claim, though there was guideline for dual custody of keys of the safe in practice, it was not 12 observed and the bank has not taken any precaution in these regard, which has resulted into an opportunity for making a fraud.
(3) Condition 4 of the policy, states that the account shall be audited annually by the banks statutory auditor. In present Claim, though it was the duty of your Auditors as well as bank to physically verify the cash, the records and police papers shows that same has not been carried put In true spirit and as such, the loss was unnoticed.
(4) The exception under clause 13 (b) states that the company shall not be liable in respect of any losses resulting wholly or partially from any negligent act or omission of insured employee. You will appreciate that the responsible officials of your bank remained gross negligent and have not taken any care about the safe custody of the cash which has resulted In the loss.
(5) The exception under clause 13 (h) states that the company shall not be liable in respect of losses due to any acts or omissions committed by the concerned employee(s) after the discovery of a loss in which the said employee(s) was involved. The claim is hereby repudiated on the above mentioned grounds that the loss has occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the Bank officials in day to day business of the bank.
12. It is the submission of the opponent insurance company that police authority has filed charge sheet only against Mr. Milind Kothari who was head cashier in insured bank during year 2006-08 and during that period he has siphoned away the cash of bank systematically by wining confidence of branch manager and auditor therefore, as lost in question was started occurring prior to the taking of policy from opponent insurance company then as per terms and conditions of the policy insurance company is not liable for the payment of claim amount.
13. We have gone through the record of the case including FIR, order of Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate and report of the charge sheet against Mr. Milind Kothari.
1314. As per the record on dated 5.1.09 during the policy period safe vaults were verified and Rs. 93,74,521.60/- was cash on hand at that time and there was no missing of any cash amount from the vaults of the insured bank therefore, in the opinion of this Commission incident of missing of Rs. 43 lacks was occurred during the policy period.
15. It is the main submission of the opponent that fraud committed by head cashier Mr. Milind Kothari, and other bank officials remain gross negligent which helped the accused to perpetuate fraud. Therefore, as per section 13(b) and 13(h) of policy terms and conditions insurance company is not liable to pay claim amount and hence, insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim.
16. Banker's indemnity policy and its terms and conditions are on record at page 8-12 & as per the policy condition, insurance coverage was taken for the following items. A. On premises B. In Transit C. Forgery or alteration D. Dishonesty, E. Hypothecated goods F. Registered Postal sending G. Appraisers
17. We have gone through the section (D) of insurance terms and conditions as shown above in which section (D) is related to "Dishonesty" and that section is reproduced below.
"By reason of the dishonest or criminal act of the employee(s) of the insured, with respect to the loss of the money and/or securities wherever committed and whether committed singly or in connivances with others:"
18. As per record it is an admitted fact that Rs. 43 Lacks was found missing/lost from the vault of the insured bank and for the missing of Rs. 43 Lakhs, bank has filed FIR against Branch 14 Manager and Mr. Nimavat, cashier but police has filed charge sheet against Mr. Milind Kothari, head cashier.
18.1 We have also gone through the survey report of Mr. Bharat Pandya and Associates which is on record from page 41-67. In the survey report at page 59 finding of the surveyor is given in which surveyor has observed as under.
"Duly signed Claim Form furnished insured has claimed Rs. 43,00,000.00 and bank has terminated services of MR. DILIP PATHAK, BRANCH MANAGER MR. NILESH NIMAVAT, HEAD CASHIER & MR. MILIND P. KOTHARI, CASHIER-CUM-CLERK committed fraud and bank lost Rs. 43,00,000.00."
Above findings shows that the surveyor has also accepted about the fraud committed by the employees of insured bank. Therefore, in the opinion of this commission act of this three employees fall within the definition of dishonesty as shown in insurance terms and conditions of section (D).
19. This Commission placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No. 3497/2012. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Vikas Sahkari Bank Ltd. In the said judgment Hon'ble National Commission has observed as under.
"On careful reading of the contingency "A" (on premises) clause reproduced above, it is clear that under this clause the insurance company is obliged to make good the loss on the premises of the bank on account of fire, riot, strike, burglary, housebreaking, theft, robbery and hold up whether by the employees of the insured or by any other person. The act of criminal misappropriation by reason of dishonesty on the part of employee resulting in loss does not fall within the definition of "on premises" clause. The loss due to dishonest or criminal act of employees has been separately covered under clause "D".
19.1 The Facts and circumstances of the above case is very similar with the present case and in the above cited case, fraud 15 committed by the employee of bank was considered as dishonesty hence, in the considered opinion of this commission act of the employee(s) of insured bank for the misappropriation of bank money Rs. 43 lakhs is dishonesty which covers under banker's indemnity policy issued by the opponent.
20. Ld. advocate Mr. N. M. Sinroja, has submitted following judgments in support of his arguments.
[1] 2008(3) CPJ 93 NC Champalal Verma Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
[2] 2013 (1) CPR 233 National Commission Ankur Surana Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. {3] 2013(2) CPR 93 NC The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s. Gausuddin Kirana [4] 2013(2) CPR 95 NC M/s. Krishna Enterprises Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance [5] III (2002) CPJ 68 (NC) Deccan Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd.
[6] I(2016) CPJ 126 (Guj.) Bharti Axa Life Insurance Versus Bhanuben Pipaliya and Others 20.1 In the above judgments at serial no. 1 to 4, it has been observed that report of the surveyor is final and conclusive and therefore, due weightage should be given. While in the judgment at serial no. 5 and 6, it has been observed that the consumer commission cannot entertain disputes about quantum and therefore, complainant should be directed to go before the Civil court.
20.2 Hence on the basis of the observations made by Apex Courts in the judgments referred above at serial no. 1 to 4, this commission also believe that the survey report is an important document and due weightage should be given. Therefore, in the 16 finding of the survey report when surveyor has specifically mentioned "committed fraud" then this opinion should be considered.
20.3 In the instant case only applicability of terms and conditions of the policy is required to decide and there is no question to decide the quantum of complaint and therefore judgments referred at serial no. 5 and 6 are not applicable in this complaint.
21. It is the submission of opponent that branch manager Mr. Pathak, Cashier Mr. Nimavat, and auditor were careless to perform their duty and if they had performed their duty efficiently the fraud would have been known earlier but as per record there is no evidence which establish that branch manager as well as Mr. Nimavat, Cashier were only negligent in their duty and they were not associated with Mr. Milind Kothari, in the crime. On the other hand FIR lodged by Mr.Nikhil Pandya, Managing Director of the bank is on record at page 14-
17. In FIR it has been mentioned that Mr. Pathak, branch manager and Mr. Nimavat, cashier both are responsible for the missing of Rs. 43 lakhs from vaults of the bank as key of the safe was under their possession. As far as auditor is concerned. He is not an employee of insured bank and therefore, his negligency is immaterial in this case.
22. We have gone through the order and judgment of Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court which is on record wherein it has been observed that the charges framed against Mr. Milind Kothari, (Accused) is not proved but thereafter an appeal has been filed before City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad which is pending.
1723. Looking to the above facts when loss of Rs. 43 lakhs is an admitted fact then it can be strongly believable that out of these three employees at least one employee has committed fraud and therefore, this act of the employee fall within the definition of dishonesty clause shown in policy conditions.
24. Hence, In the opinion of this commission when loss is occurred on account of the dishonesty of the employee(s) of insured bank then complainant bank is entitled to get claim amount but as per excess clause of policy, insured bank have to bear 25% of the each loss under item no. A to E or 2% of the basic sum insured whichever is higher but does not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, as per the excess clause of insurance policy maximum Rs. 50,000/- is required to be deducted from the claim amount and hence, insurance company is entitled to deduct Rs. 50,000/- from the claim amount of Rs. 43 lakhs.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the act of criminal misappropriation by reason of dishonesty on the part of employee resulting in loss fall within the definition of "dishonesty" clause and therefore, complainant bank is entitled to get claim amount. Hence, in the opinion of this Commission by repudiating the claim of complainant, opponent insurance company has shown deficiency in service and therefore, we pass following final order.
ORDER
I) The complaint is partly allowed.
II) The Opponent Oriental Insurance company ltd. is ordered to pay Rs. 42,50,000/- (Rupees Forty two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
18III) Opponent Oriental insurance company is ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as costs of the complaint and shall bear its own costs if any.
IV) Opponent insurance company shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order.
V) Copy of the judgment and order be provided to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 21st December, 2020 [Dr. J. G. Mecwan] [Mr. V. P. Patel] Member President M. B. Desai