Per Hon’ble Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
1. This is a consumer complaint filed by M/s.Simex India Private Limited (formerly known as M/s.Simex Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd.) having registered office at 71, Mittal Towers, ‘B’ wing, 7th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. This complaint is filed against M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and M/s.Shree Hari Shipping Private Ltd. According to complainant, opponent is the Insurance Company carrying on business of insurance who has registered office at 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 and one of its Divisional / Unit office at Mani Mahal, 3rd floor, 11/21, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004.
2. Opponent no.2 are the Shipping Company registered under Companies Act having management, control and possession of Country Craft, M.S.V. “Shreemathi” CLR 131 and they are carrying on business of Carriers of goods by Sea for consideration and they are accepting the goods and freight charges in Mumbai through their Agents M/s.Sirius Shipping Co.Ltd. having its office at 27A, 4th floor, Nariman House, 37/39, Police Court Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. According to complainants they are doing business of supplying mineral and chemicals including Bentonite Lumps to various parties within the country and also exporting to overseas countries. The complainants entrusted consignment of 500 M.T. of Bentonite Lumps to opponent no.2 to carry and deliver the same from Mundra to Mangalore. The opponent no.2 accepted the consignment for consideration and issued their Bill of Lading dated 27/11/1998, evidencing that 500 M.T. of Bentonite Lumps in 13000 cement bags shipped in sound condition for its safe and timely delivery at the Mangalore Port. The complainants had taken from opponent no.1 the insurance cover for Marine Transit risk of 500 M.T. of Bentonite Lumps packed in Cement bags for the value of `8,50,000/- and had paid the premium. The opponents accepted the proposal to insure the transaction risk of the said 500 M.T. Bentonite Lumps and issued Policy bearing No.112500/21/23864. (Exhibit C).
3. The complainants had sent the goods through opponent no.2 in their Country Crafts issuing Bill of Lading dated 27/11/1998 Ex. Mundra to Mangalore. The said consignment was loaded in M.S.V. “Shreemathi” CLR 131 owned by opponent no.2. Exhibit D is the copy of Country Craft Bill of Lading dated 27/11/1998. Exhibit ‘E’ and ‘F’ are the copies of Custome Invoice dated 20/11/1998 in respect of 500 M..T of Bentonite Lumps and Shipping Bill for Export of Duty free goods duly sanctioned by Custom Authorities. According to complainant the Country Craft said to have sailed from the Port of Mundra on 28/11/1998 however the same had not reported at the Port of discharge till 15/12/1998. The complainants by their fax dated 16/12/1999 made enquiry with M/s.Sirius Shipping Co.Ltd. to ascertain the position of the said ship. The complainant then sent another fax on 21/12/1998 and informed opponent no.1 that they understood from the agents of Shipping Co. that Country Craft had reached Mangalore but exact position and the conditions of the Cargo was still not known. The complainant further requested opponent no.1 to arrange for survey of the consignment before the same could be discharged from the Country Craft. Complainant further pointed out to opponent no.1 that if the material is wet then it is totally unusable and therefore survey should be carried out at the time of unloading the consignment from the country craft. Exhibit G is the letter to that effect sent to opponent no.1. Mumbai agents of opponent no.2 by their fax dated 22/12/1998 informed the complainants that the vessel was having problem at Mangalore. The complainant pleaded that they thereafter by their fax dated 23/12/1998 informed opponent no.1 to carry out spot survey and other requirements as may be necessary and required by the opponent no.1 as Insurer of the said consignment. The complainant further enclosed policy document for the purpose of doing needful by the opponent no.1. Exhibit E is the letter sent to that effect. Thereafter, opponent no.1 by their letter dated 23/12/1998 asked their Regional Manager Banglore to depute a surveyor to assess the loss. By letter dated 28/12/1998 the Mangalore divisional office of the opponent no.1 confirmed the appointment of a Surveyor to carry out survey and investigation. Exhibit I is the copy of fax. Complainant pleaded that by letter dated 01/01/1999 they requested Port Officer, MangalorePort to issue total loss of the consignments of 500 M.T. Bentonite Lumps. Exhibit J is the copy of letter. Port Officer, by letter dated 05/04/1999 refused to issue certificate of loss on the ground that opponent no.2 being owner of the Country craft failed to remove the wreck of the said vessel. Exhibit K is the copy of the said letter.
4. The opponent no.1 through their Mangalore office dated 11/01/1999 informed the complainants that they have appointed Mr.P.Narayan as Surveyor and requested the complainants to submit several documents in support of their claim. Complainant by their letter dated 15/01/1999 forwarded several documents to opponent no.1 and requested from time to time to opponent no.1 to settle the claim of `8,50,000/- being the loss suffered by the complainant. Opponent no.2 was also moved by the complainant to reimburse them for the loss of consignment. Complainant pleaded that Mr.P.Narayan surveyor appointed by opponent no.1 demanded several documents some of which were already submitted to opponent no.1. Opponent no.2 also failed to furnish non delivery certificate though asked for by the complainant. Complainant by their letter dated 26/03/1999 addressed to Mercantile Marine Department requested them to provide report as required by opponent no.1. Exhibit Q is the said letter. Complainant informed opponent no.1 that opponent no.2 was not co-operating by providing non-delivery certificate in spite of repeated requests. Complainant further pointed out to opponent no.1 that Weather Report of Bombay is not applicable as the country craft had sunk at Mangalore. They further informed opponent no.1 that claim lodged by them is not for the loss of vessel but for the loss of goods which were insured with opponent no.1/Insurance Company. Complainant pleaded that opponent no.1 had not denied at any stage the fact that the country craft has sunk and the entire consignment of 500 M.T. of Bentonite Lumps was lost. The opponent no.1 under one pretext or the other went on delaying the settlement of complainants claim by demanding several irrelevant and unconcerned documents from the complainants. Again complainant requested opponent no.2 for settlement of their claim by letter dated 04/05/1999. Complainant pleaded that opponent no.1 insisted for certain documents which were required to be given by opponent no.2. But opponent no.2 was not at all co-operating and not providing documents as called for by opponent no.1 to settle the claim of the complainants. Complainants pleaded that they had appointed M/s.J.B.Boda, surveyors who were on the panel of surveyors of opponent no.1 and they sent survey report of M/s.J.B.Boda to the opponent no.1 vide letter dated 06/04/1999. Exhibit Y is the copy of survey repot dated 06/04/1999 was enclosed with the said report. Complainants pleaded that despite the co-operation given to the opponent nos.1 & 2, opponent no.1 was avoiding to give insurance claim on one or other pretext. Opponent no.1 all the while insisted that complainants should get report from Marine Mercantile department about sinking of M.S.V. Shreemathi CLR 131 Country Craft for settlement of claim. Ultimately, the Port officer, Chennai issued certificate that entire cargo of the 500 M.T. Bentonite lumps was total loss. Exhibit Z-12 is the copy of the certificate dated 27/10/2000 issued by MangalorePort. On the receipt of said certificate from the Port officer, complainants forwarded said certificate to opponent no.1 and requested to process and settle the claim of the complainants. Exhibit Z-13 is the copy of said letter. Again opponent no.1 by their letter dated 14/11/2000 once again repeated to furnish the casualty report to the complainants. The complainants therefore by their letter dated 17/11/2000 once again requested the Port Officer, Mangalore Port to furnish Casualty Report in respect of M.S.V. Shreemathi CLR 131 Country Craft. The Port officer MangalorePort by his letter dated 27/11/2000 informed the complainants his inability to issue casualty report and further advised to approach their Chennai office.
5. The complainants submit that they had insured the consignment of 500 M.T. Bentonite lumps for transit risk with the opponent no.1. The complainants submit that it has been proved beyond doubt by documentary evidence of the Government Authorities that the consignment of 500 M.T. of Bentonite lumps is a total loss and, therefore, opponent no.1 are liable in terms of insurance policy to pay to the complainants loss suffered by them. Opponent no.1 was making complainants to run from pillar to post to get one document or other for settlement of their claim. According to complainants Marine Casualty report called for from the complainants is not in their possession and complainants was not in a position to procure Marine Casualty report from the Government authorities. According to complainants, Marine Casualty report is not essential for the purpose of settlement of complainant’s cargo claim. So demand of the said report is nothing but an attempt on the part of opponent no.1 to delay the settlement of claim of the complainants and to cause harassment to the complainants. Thus, complainants allege deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company. Complainants pleaded that non delivery of consignment was caused due to failure on the part of opponent no.2 in exercising reasonable care, skill and diligence in managing their country craft during transit. So opponent no.2 also committed deficiency in service because of their failure to deliver the consignment at the destination of port in safe condition. Complainants therefore pleaded that both the opponents are guilty of deficiency in service in not settling the claim of the complainants and, therefore, complainants filed consumer complaint for claiming an amount of `14,41,000/- with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and also claimed costs of `30,000/- from the opponents as per particulars of claim mentioned at page 116 of the complaint compilation.
6. Complainants in support of their complaint filed affidavit of Mr.Shridhar M.Shetty, Managing Director of M/s.Simex India Pvt.Ltd. and relies upon the said affidavit.
7. Opponent no.1-M/s.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. filed written version and admitted that it had issued Marine Insurance Policy bearing no.112500/21/23864 to the insurer. Complainants had lodged a claim for the loss of cargo. Complainants were repeatedly asked by opponent no.1 to submit certain relevant documents in order to process the claim but complainants did not produce those documents. As such, opponent no.1 asked for clarification of same from the complainants. Opponent no.1 pleaded that they had sent various letters to the complainants which are specifying these facts. Exhibit A is the copies of some of the letters. Opponent no.1 pleaded that the claim of the complainants is repudiated but there is neither deficiency in service nor delay in settlement of the claim. According to opponent no.1, complainants could not furnish relevant documents as asked for from time to time to the opponent. Opponent no.1 denied that it has been proved beyond doubt by documentary evidence of Government authorities that consignment of 500 M.T. Bentonite Lumps was a total loss. Opponent no.1 denied that they are liable to pay loss suffered by the complainants under the policy. They denied that they made complainants run from pillar to post to get the documents. Opponent no.1 submits that they have not delayed settlement of the claim of the complainants by demanding irrelevant and unconnected documents from the complainants. They pleaded that they are not liable to pay any amount under the policy with interest as alleged by the complainants. They pleaded that complainants are not entitled to get any amount from them and, therefore, complaint should be dismissed with costs.
8. Opponent also filed affidavit in proof of evidence of Mr.Byndoor Sundar Shet, officer in support of their case. Some documents are also filed by opponent no.1. Complainants had filed affidavit of evidence of Mr.Shridhar M.Shetty, Managing Director of M/s.Simex India Pvt.Ltd.
9. Opponent no.2 did not file written version. Opponent no.2 is proceed ex-parte as per order dated 18/12/2003 after it was found that opponent no.2 was duly served in this complaint.
10. We heard submissions of Mr.S.K.Shetty-Advocate for the complainants and Ms.Bhakti Barve-Advocate for the opponent no.1-Insurance Company.
11. The following points would arise for our consideration.
Point no.1: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the complainants?
Answer : Our finding is in negative so far as opponent no.1 is concerned.
Point No.2 : Whether opponent no.2 carried the goods by sea assigned to it for transporting the consignor’s goods from Mundra to Mangalore (Karnataka) had delivered the goods in the same condition in which they were loaded on the ship.
Answer : NO.
Point no.3 : Whether therefore opponent no.2 is liable for the loss sustained by the complainant due to non delivery of the consigned goods?
Answer : YES.
Point no.4 : What relief?
Answer : Complaint is partly allowed as against opponent no.2.
REASONS
Ld.Advocate for opponent no.1 in the course of arguments brought to our notice that they had sent so many letters to the complainants and asked for certain information but the complainants did not provide correct information, proper documents and, therefore, they were required to repudiate the claim. The Ld.counsel for the opponent no.1 brought to our notice the major lacunae in the case presented by the complainants. According to Ld.counsel for opponent no.1, complainants informed the Insurance company –opponent no.1 that vessel in question M.S.V. Shreemathi CLR 131 had run aground on 23/12/1998, whereas the Marine Casualty report earlier stated that the vessel was grounded on 24/12/1998 and subsequently, during investigation of the said claim by the Insurance Investigator the Port Office Mangalore has confirmed that the said vessel was actually grounded on 19/12/1998. In this view of the matter there is appearing to be major lacunae in the case present by the complainants themselves. It was also argued on behalf of opponent no.1/Insurance Company that ship owners or Tandel or crew members of the said vessel did not take any reasonable care to save the cargo. Port office Mangalore stated that the said vessel actually grounded on 19/12/1998. From that day till the vessel actually got sunk in the sea there were 5-6 days within which period cargo could have been unloaded from the sinking or grounded vessel. Nobody from the carriers i.e.opponent no.2 owner of the ship took reasonable steps to save the cargo from the said sinking vessel. This is another lacunae we are finding in the instant case. Ld.Advocate for opponent no.1 stated that the policy conditions at 11.01 and 11.02 should have been observed by the complainants and it was the duty of the assured to take reasonable steps to minimize the loss by way of trying to salvage the cargo. This was not done at all though the vessel was partially sunk and deck line was above water for few days. So there was violation of condition no.11 of the policy. He also pointed out replying on policy condition no.11.2 that it was the duty of the assured to ensure that all rights against the carries, bailees or other third parties are properly preserved and exercised. So it was the duty of the complainants to immediately lodge the claim with the carriers and ship owners because they were the persons who failed to deliver the cargo to the complainants but complainants did nothing but while filing the compliant, complainant company alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.2 who were entrusted with the carriage of goods from Mundra to Mangalore port by the complainants. Ld.counsel for the Insurance Company also relied upon exclusion clause no.2.2 and asserted that in no case insurance company agreed to cover the loss, damage or expenses willfully caused by or due to unlawful conduct or negligence or misbehaviour on the part of the Tandel or crew members or the owner of the craft or shippers of consignees. The Opponent no.2, with whom cargo was entrusted with the job of transporting the goods of the complainants from Mundra to Mangalore by sea had not taken any steps to find out why the vessel did not reach Mangalore on time and they had not taken any reasonable steps against the ship owners and, therefore, the Insurance Company submitted that they cannot be held liable for the acts, omissions on the part of opponent no.2 and since they were shippers and carriers of the goods engaged by the complainants, they are liable to make good the loss for non delivery of the goods occasioned to the complainant company. Insurance company had appointed M/s.J.Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. as investigators and surveyors after the claim was received from the complainants. Said surveyors of Insurance Company mentioned that in terms of exclusion clause no.2.2 policy claim may not be payable to the assured. Likewise, they also relied upon 11.1 and 11.2 clauses of the policy in which the duty is cast on the assured that their servants and agents shall take measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimizing such loss and to ensure that all rights against carriers bailees or other third parties are properly preserved and exercised. M/s.J.Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. has made following observations:-
OBSERVATIONS :
1. The Vessel’s Insured and the crew members appeared to have suppressed the fact of actual date of incident, in all probability to qualify their insurance claim, since the vessel had insurance cover only from 21/12/98 and that too for a very high value, which was produced by an illegitimate valuation report.
The Affidavit and Note of Protest of Insured and the crew members showing the date of casualty as 24/12/98, whilst the casualty, according to the Port Officer, Mangalore, who had visited the Vessel on 20/12/98 when she was in stranded condition at the entrance channel, was on 19/12/98 at 1600 Hrs.
2. Since the actual date of occurrence was misrepresented, the alleged casualty itself could have been stage managed, for obtaining pecuniary benefit, which will tantamount to unlawful conduct or negligence or misbehaviour on the part of the Tindal/ crew members and the Owner of the vessel, thus causing loss/damage to the cargo, which is an ‘exclusion’ under the policy. The Vessel Owner and crew members intentions appeared malafied and they did not appear to have shown any interest or effort to remove/save the cargo, though the vessel was in stranded condition from 19/12/98 to 29/12/98.
3. The Insured loaded the cargo on the Vessel on 29/11/98, at Mundra, for Mangalore which is about 745 Nautical miles, and should have been reaching within 6 days of time, with an average speed of about 6 Knots. When the Vessel had not reached even after 20 days the Insured should not have been waiting till he heard about sinking of Vessel on 23/12/98. He should have written letters to the Vessel Owners and alerted the Coast Guard, Port Authority as well as intimated the Underwriter about unusual delay of the Vessel and anticipated loss to his cargo, unless he heard from the Carrier that everything was safe. By not doing so, he had failed in complying with the reasonable dispatch clause –avoidance of delay.
4. Though the Cargo Owner had written to his Underwriter on 23/12/98 that the Vessel had sunk, the Port Signal Station and the local news paper in which the incident had appeared, mentioned that the vessel was seen above water till 29/12/98. Hence, if the Cargo Owner would have put some effort, probably the entire cargo might have been salvaged, since the vessel was only stranded and the deck line was above the water line, as seen in the newspaper.
5. The Insured had lodged a Monetary Claim on the Vessel owner, vide a Regd. A/D letter dated 14/01/99, addressed to Mr.K.Padmanabhan, Director, Sreehari Shipping Pvt.Ltd., Ambal Bldg., 727, Mount Road, Madras 600 006, towards the loss of their entire cargo valued at `8,50,000/-. However, the letter had been returned to the sender by the P&T Dept. with the endorsement “Not Found”.
Further, as per papers made available to us by the Insured, they were not successful in obtaining the “Non-Delivery/Damage” certificate from the Carrier and they also contended that the Carrier had not co-operated with them.
Notwithstanding the foregoing the Insured should have taken the proper steps as required from a Prudent Insured in acting as if un-insured by reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities including, inter alia, lodging of Police complaint/FIR etc., which does not appear to have been done.
6. By not taking prompt action at least after coming to know of the incident on 23/12/98, the Cargo owner/Insured appeared to have not exercised his duty in minimizing the loss, as is a requirement under “Duty of assured clause”.
CONCLUSION:
The Underwriter may treat the claim as deemed fit, after considering the above aspect/discrepancies observed by us.
Insurance Company had sent letter dated 25/06/1999 to the complainant, that letter speaks for itself. This letter was not at all complied with by the complainant company and, therefore, Insurance Company was required to repudiate the claim. Thus, on examining various documents presented by the Insurance Company, we are finding that Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim presented by the complainant. In fact what is pertinent to note is the fact that even shippers –opponent no.2 had selected vessel M.S.V. Shreemathi CLR 131, which was not even insured on the date of entrustment of goods by complainant to opponent no.2 /shippers for taking the goods consignment from Mundra to Mangalore port. Complainant had appointed M/s.J.B.Boda Surveyors Ltd. of Mangalore. He submitted his survey report on 06/04/1999. He mentioned that date of sailing of the vessel with goods of the complainants from Mangalore was 29/11/1998 and date of accident as reported by the complainant was on 24/12/1998. The consignment contained 500 M.T. Bentonite Lumps from Mundra through the vessel M.S.V.Sreemathi CLR-131 and after port clearance, the vessel sailed from Mundra on 29/11/1998 towards Mangalore. En route the sea became rough and vessel was proceeding at slow speed and entered MangaloreOldPort channel on 24th December, 1998. Upon proceeding in about 13 feet of water at about 2400 hours on the same day the engine of the vessel stopped on its own and drifted due to water current. The drifted vessel could not be steered, hence it contacted at bottom, sustained damages, gradually listed and sunk. Due to sinking of vessel, the consignment of 500 M.T. of Bentonite Lumps also subjected to total loss as it was sunk along with the vessel.
This report is contrary to the report of M/s.J.Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. appointed by the Insurance Company. From the various documents it is clear that vessel had drifted and grounded on 19/12/1998 and it had ultimately sunk somewhere on 24/12/1998 and no salvage attempts were made during this period, no reasonable care to unload sunk ship had been taken by the officials, their agents or by the crew members of the ship of opponent no.2. So in terms of exclusion clause and for failure to observe reasonable care and duty the insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company and, therefore, the complaint as lodged against Insurance Company is appearing to be devoid of any substance.
It must be borne in mind that Insurance Company is the proper authority to decide whether the claim should be allowed or rejected. As a Judicial Tribunal dealing with the deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company arising out of repudiation of the claim, we have to simply examine whether claim lodged by the complainant was valid and whether it was rejected or repudiated on grounds which are non existent or it was rejected just to deprive the complainant of the fruits of insurance policy. We are finding that the Insurance Company in the instant case has rightly repudiated the claim presented by the complainant because complainants and their shippers had not taken reasonable measures to rescue the cargo from the ship. They had 5-6 days within which period the goods could have been salvaged by taking necessary prompt measures. Those were not taken by the complainant or opponent no.2. Opponent no.2 are the carriers. It was their duty to save the goods consigned to them for transportation by sea from Mundra to Mangalore port. They did not take any action to prevent the damage and, therefore, in our view Insurance Company/opponent no.1 cannot be held liable to reimburse the loss sustained by the complainant because of sinking of the vessel M.S.V.Sreemathi CLR-131.
As far as opponent no.2 is concerned, they have not bothered to contest this complaint. Opponent no.2 admittedly were entrusted with the job of carrying the goods from port of Mundra to port of Mangalore. Goods were loaded in the vessel by opponent no.2 at Mundra on 28/11/1998 and same were to be reported at the port of discharge by 15/12/1998. But as it turns out the vessel had run aground, it had sunk in the sea on or about 24/12/1998, the goods could not be salvaged for the fault of officials and crew members of opponent no.2. We have perused the Bill of Lading issued by opponent no.2 in favour of Complainant Company. Bill of Lading clearly mentions which is at Exhibit D that goods of 13000 bags containing Bentonite Lumps packed in about 35 & 40 kgs. Bags were loaded in M.S.V.Sreemathi CLR-131 vessel and consignors were complainant and consignee were self and goods were to be carried from Mundra to Mangalore port. So from this Bill of Lading it is very clear that the goods were loaded in the ship belonging to opponent no.2. They contained 13000 bags containing Bentonite Lumps packed in about 35 & 40 kgs. And Coastal Export Invoice clearly mentioned that the said goods were worth `8,50,000/-. Another document shipping bill for export of duty free goods issued by Custom office Mangalore also clearly states that the goods were sent by M/s.Simex Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd. of Mumbai and consignee were ‘self’ and goods were to be carried by sea in M.S.V.Sreemathi CLR-131 vessel from Mundra to Mangalore port and goods were 500 M.T.Bentonite Lumps kept in about 13000 bags. All these facts along with the notice issued by complainants to Mr.Thiru K.Padmanaban, Mr.Thiru S.Hari and Shri Hari Shipping Pvt.Ltd. clearly shows that the goods were entrusted to opponent no.2 for carrying the same from Mundra port of Gujarat to port of Mangalore and the goods had not arrived at Mangalore harbour and, therefore, by letter dated 14/01/1999 Exhibit N, complainants called upon the agents of said vessel and Shri Hari Shipping Pvt.Ltd. to reimburse them `8,50,000/- because of consequential loss suffered by them by not delivering the goods at the port of discharge. From all these documents it is clear that as a transporter the goods were entrusted to opponent no.2 and they failed to deliver the same at the port of discharge at Mangalore because vessel had already sunk into the sea and, therefore, as a carrier, opponent no.2 must be held squarely liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainants because of non delivery of the goods entrusted to opponent no.2 and since they have remained ex-parte there is no defence forthcoming from opponent no.2 and, therefore, relying on the complaint, affidavits and documents, we have no hesitation to direct opponent no.2 to pay an amount of `8,50,000/- for non delivery of the goods/consignment booked by the complainants at Mundra port and, therefore, complaint can be partly allowed as against opponent no.2 only. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
1. Consumer complaint is partly allowed as against opponent no.2-M/s.Shree Hari Shipping Pvt.Ltd.
2. Consumer complaint stands dismissed as against opponent no.1.
3. Opponent no.2- M/s.Shree Hari Shipping Pvt.Ltd. is hereby directed to pay to the complainant an amount of `8,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization, besides opponent no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of `15,000/- by way of costs to the complainant.
4. Both the opponents are hereby directed to bear their own costs.
5. Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 4th April, 2012.
