AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM VSM

1. The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Opposite Party seeking to direct the OP:

                          a. Direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 2,46,06,000/- to the complainant towards the loss suffered by the complainant due to the fire which took place in the sponge iron in factory premises on 06.06.2017.

                          b. Direct the respondent to pay interest on the above said amount @ 18% per annum from 06.06.2017 till the date of realization.

                          c. Direct the respondent to pay damages to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- for the loss and financial hardship suffered by the complainant as result of being deprived of their money against the loss suffered.

                          d. Litigation costs amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-. e. Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble forum may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant is an incorporated company engaged in the manufacture of TMT reinforcing steel rebars at its factory premises situated at Village Kishanpur Kichha, Nainital and is authorized to institute this complaint through its Manager (Liaison) pursuant to a Board Resolution dated 16.01.2018. The Complainant had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party (OP) covering various stock-in-trade, including sponge iron, up to a sum insured of ₹10,50,00,000. This policy is valid from 04.08.2016 to 03.08.2017. On the intervening night of 06.06.2017, a sudden and accidental fire broke out in the sponge iron stock of the Complainant lying near the second furnace, resulting in complete destruction of approximately 1200 Metric Tonnes of sponge iron, valued at ₹2,46,06,000. The incident was immediately reported by the Complainant to the OP and a claim was duly lodged, along with all requisite documents, including stock statements, invoices, loss certificates, and incident reports. The surveyor appointed by the OP inspected the site and confirmed the occurrence of fire and the loss suffered.

3. It is the specific contention of the Complainant that despite the loss due to fire is a clearly covered peril under the policy issued by OP and there being no material to establish its exclusion, the OP illegally repudiated the claim on untenable and presumptive ground of natural heating leading to spontaneous combustion, which is neither factually possible nor applicable to the circumstances of the case. The claim repudiation is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the policy, and violative of settled insurance law, thereby constituting clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, rendering the OP liable to indemnify the Complainant for the loss, along with interest, damages, and costs.

4. Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the OP by filing its written version, wherein the OP contended that the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious, abuse of legal process, filed on misconceived facts and untenable legal grounds, and is therefore liable to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary costs. The Complainant failed to discharge the primary burden of proving its status as a "consumer", any deficiency in service, or any unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The insurance claim was repudiated strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, exclusions, and warranties of the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, which unequivocally excludes loss arising from natural heating or spontaneous combustion, the very cause of loss was conclusively determined by an independent, IRDA-licensed surveyor appointed under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. The repudiation was bona fide and based on due process, professional assessment, and policy stipulations, and cannot, in law, constitute deficiency in service.

Further, the complainant failed to comply with its contractual obligations by not furnishing vital documents, including stock registers and cogent proof of loss, despite repeated opportunities, compelling the surveyor to make only a provisional assessment on a without-prejudice basis, which cannot form the foundation for indemnification. It is a settled law that insurance policies must be construed strictly and cannot be rewritten on equitable considerations, that indemnity is confined only to actual and proven loss within policy coverage, and that consumer fora exercising summary jurisdiction are not meant to adjudicate complex and disputed questions of fact. The complaint, being speculative, unsupported by evidence, and filed with the intent to unjustly enrich the complainant, deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. The Complainant filed Rejoinder and reiterated the facts of the complaint and filed its evidence on Affidavit and relied on the board resolution as Ex.CW1/1, Copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.CW1/2, copy of communication dated 06.06.2017 as Ex.CW1/3, copy of claim form as Ex.CW1/4, copy of email dated 10.06.2017 as Ex.CW1/5, copy of letter dated 29.08.2017 as Ex.CW1/6, Invoice dated 12.05.2017 as Ex.CW1/7, statement showing sponge iron consumption and stock statement as Ex.CW1/8.

6. The OP filed its evidence on Affidavit and relied on the Surveyors Report dated 22.07.2017 as Ex.OP-2.

7. The learned counsel for the Complainant reiterated the facts and background of the complaint as well as the rejoinder and argued that the Complainant is a duly incorporated manufacturing company engaged in the production of TMT rebars using sponge iron, which was stored as raw material within its insured factory premises at Kichha, Uttarakhand. There existed a valid Standard Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy covering stock worth ₹10.50 Crores in force on the date of the incident, with premium having been duly paid. On the night of 06.06.2017, a fire broke out in the sponge iron stock lying near the second furnace, which rapidly spread and resulted in the complete destruction of about 1200 MT of sponge iron valued at ₹2,46,06,000. The incident was promptly intimated to the insurer. The OP appointed IRDA-licensed surveyor himself witnessed the fire-affected stock and verified the loss. The learned counsel painstakingly argued that the loss was clearly caused by fire, which is an insured peril and not by natural heating or spontaneous combustion, as wrongly and mechanically invoked by the OP to deny liability, despite the fact that sponge iron cannot spontaneously combust at ambient temperatures and requires very high heat levels that cannot arise naturally. It was contended that all relevant documents, including stock statements, invoices, valuation reports, and auditor certified records, were duly furnished, and the surveyor’s own report acknowledged the incident and destruction, making repudiation unsustainable. It was further argued that there is no specific exclusion barring loss of sponge iron due to fire. There is no ambiguity in policy terms which must be interpreted in favour of the insured, and that once fire and loss are admitted, the burden lies on the insurer to strictly prove applicability of exclusions, which has not been done. The rejection of the claim by the OP was arbitrary, contrary to policy terms, and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, entitling the Complainant to indemnification of ₹2,46,06,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and damages of ₹50,00,000/- for financial loss, hardship, and harassment caused by the OP. He relied upon National Insurance Company Ltd vs Ishar Das Madan Lal reported (2007) 4 SCC; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported (2023) 12 SCC 823; New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Pradeep Kumar reported (2009) 7 SCC 787; Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation reported 2022 SCC Online 509; and Historical Weather Data of Kiccha District (Uttarakhad, India) for the months of May and June in the year 2017 and for the 6th of June from the years 2009 to 2025;

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP argued that the complaint is founded on distorted facts, speculative assertions, and legally untenable premises, amounting to a clear abuse of the process of law, as they neither approached this Commission with clean hands nor discharged the burden of proving a covered loss. It was argued that the claim repudiation was bona fide, reasoned, and strictly based on the findings of an independent IRDA licensed surveyor appointed under Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938, read with the explicit terms, conditions, exclusions, and warranties of the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, categorically excludes losses arising from natural heating or spontaneous combustion. The surveyor, after repeated requests, was constrained to issue a provisional and without-prejudice assessment due to the complainant’s failure to furnish essential documents such as stock registers and movement records, thereby rendering the alleged loss unproven and unverifiable. It was further argued that insurance contracts are contracts of indemnity and must be construed strictly as written, without recourse to equity or liberal interpretation. Mere incident of fire or payment of premium does not ipso facto entitle an insured to indemnification absent proof of actual loss within policy coverage. The claim of destruction of 1200 MT of sponge iron was as unsupported by credible evidence. The documents relied upon being self-serving and contrary to surveyor’s final report, which attributes loss to natural heating or spontaneous combustion, a known characteristic of sponge iron stored in bulk. This peril was not covered under the policy nor taken as an add-on cover. The complainant failed to comply with obligations of the policy, prove the cause and quantum of loss, or rebut the surveyor’s expert findings. Thus, OP is justified in repudiating vide letter dated 29.08.2017. Seeking dismissal of the complaint, he relied upon Orion Conmerx Pvt Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., CA No.3806 of 2020 along with CA No.3855 of 2020, decided on 30.10.2025.

9. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties.

10. The main issue that needs to be determined is whether the repudiation of the insurance claim by OP vide letter dated 29.08.2017 on the ground that the loss occasioned was due to spontaneous combustion constitutes deficiency in service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

11. In this regard, the insurance contract entered into between the parties in the form of Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy for total sum insured of Rs.10,50,00,000, valid from 04.08.2016 to 03.08.2017 as well as the fire incident on 06.06.2017 in which about 1200 Metric Tons of sponge iron valued at Rs.2,46,06,000 was stated to have been destroyed are undisputed. The main dispute is with respect to the cause that led to the fire, the consequent loss and whether the loss is covered under the policy. While the Complainant asserted that it was due to the sponge iron stored near the furnace catching fire and thus the loss occurred and the said peril of fire is covered under the policy, on the other hand, OP contended that the fire in which the sponge iron was destroyed was due to spontaneous combustion. While sponge iron is known to be susceptible to spontaneous combustion, the Complainant chose not to opt for insurance cover for this peril under the policy. On the Complainant reporting the matter on the same day, OP engaged a surveyor to ascertain the claim. The surveyor filed the Final Report dated 22.07.2017 determining Rs.1,44,63,830 as Net Assessed loss. It is a matter of record that, based on the survey report, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 29.08.2017 on the following grounds:

                          "We are now in receipt of survey report along with Claim Form & Statement of Loss submitted by you wherein it is observed that reported less to "sponge iron" stored in a single heap has occurred & initiated due to "Spontaneous Combustion".

                          Unfortunately Fire policy excludes Fire occurred/initiated/ caused by Spontaneous Combustion, with policy condition reading as:-

                          IN CONSIDERATION OF the Insured named in the Schedule hereto having paid to SBI General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called „the Company‟) the full premium mentioned in the said Schedule, THE Company agrees, (subject to the Conditions and Exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the property insured described in the said Schedule or any part of such property be destroyed or damaged by any of the perils specified hereunder during the period of insurance named in the said Schedule or of any subsequent period in respect of which the Insured shall have paid and the Company shall have accepted the premium required for the renewal of the Policy, the Company shall pay to the Insured the value of the property at the time of the happening of its destruction or the amount of such damage or at its option reinstate or replace such property or any part thereof:-

                          FIRE Excluding destruction or damage causes to the property insured by

                          (i) its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion.

                          (ii) it's undergoing any heating or drying process.

                          (ii) Burning of property insured by order of any Public Authority.

                          Thus policy specifically excludes all losses (including Fire) arising/occasioned/Caused/out of Spontaneous Combustion & present claim is falling outside ambit of policy coverage."

12. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the present complaint has been filed. The fundamental issue based on which the claim was repudiated was that the loss as determined by the surveyor vide Final Report dated 22.07.2017 had occasioned due to spontaneous combustion, which is not a peril covered under the terms of policy entered into between the parties. It is the specific assertion of OP that the „spontaneous combustion‟ which is the cause of the loss is not covered under the policy. Sponge iron stored in large quantities at one place is susceptible to the risk of spontaneous combustion. The OP asserted that if the Complainant intended to seek insurance cover for this peril, they ought to have sought this to be covered under the said policy and paid separate premium with respect to the stocks held so as bring the scope of the loss due to spontaneous combustion covered under the policy. In the absence of the same, this peril is not within the scope of the instant insurance policy and the claim is liable to be rejected.

13. It is the specific contention of the Complainant that sponge iron which, is the main raw material used by the Complainant, was in fact held in large quantities within the factory premises. It had caught fire due to being located in the proximity to the high temperature prevailing at the furnace and the fire spread to the remaining stocks located in the same area. The fire and consequent damage that had occasioned was not due to spontaneous combustion and that it was due to the incident of fire that has spread to the stock from the furnace nearby. This fire damage is clearly covered within the scope of the policy. It is the specific contention of the Complainant that while the occasion of fire and the consequent damage is undisputed, if the OP seeks to bring the incident into and exclusion clause of the policy, the same ought to be established by the OP, which has not been done. The Complainant contended that in the absence of OP proving that the loss had occasioned due to spontaneous combustion, the Complainant is entitled for payment of the claim since loss had in fact occurred due to fire and the policy in question covers the same.

14. Records reveal that the factory of the insured Complainant is at Village Kishanpur Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand in a 10.68 Acre land. The Complainant structured the premises in different blocks with RCC Office building and electrical panel and the blocks used for manufacturing and storage area are constructed of walls of burnt bricks laid in cement mortar and roof of GI Sheets. The heap of sponge iron, which is the subject matter of claim, was stored under one of the sheds near the furnace. The insured used to procure sponge iron stocks from Aarti Steels Ltd, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd, Visa Steel & Power Ltd etc. On 28.05.2017 their order for 2433.19 MT of sponge iron from Aarti Steels Ltd was received at the Complainant’s premises and was stored in a shed near the second furnace in common heap. OP was notified that at about 10.00 PM on 06.06.2017, the security guard observed smoke in the heap of sponge iron stored/ lying near the second furnace. The entire material in the common heap was generating lot of heat. He informed the security head immediately, who in turn informed the Complainant. Since water/other fire extinguishers could not be used to douse the fire as sponge iron is highly combustible if it gets in contact with water. Thus, the insured immediately deployed labourers to create firebreaks/ segregation from hot affected material from the heap. At his stage, it was noticed that the heat had internally travelled to complete heap. The Complainant caused faster consumption of affected material along with steps to prevent the fire to spread. From the circumstances of loss and the surveyor’s Initial inspection, it was revealed that the sponge iron stocks, the subject matter of the claim was stored in common heap and loss/damage to the heap got initiated/ occurred due to spontaneous combustion. The surveyor considered that in cases of spontaneous combustion, sponge iron reacts with dry air i.e. oxygen to form a magnetite. The reaction is very exothermic and can generate enough heat to spontaneously ignite adjacent sponge iron material.

15. The coverage under the SFSP Policy states as under:

                          "Fire Excluding destruction or damage caused to the property insured by a. (i) its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion.

                          (ii) it's undergoing any heating or drying process.

                          (iii) Burning of property insured by order of any Public Authority"

16. From the scope of the policy in question, the loss or damage initiated and/or occurred to the insured stocks on account of "spontaneous combustion" is excluded. However, the insured could have sought and obtained to cover the peril of spontaneous combustion by taking „Add on Cover‟ after payment of additional premium. As per the Complainant, a heap of about 1200 MT of sponge iron stored in their factory premises was burnt and/or damaged and the claim for loss was Rs.2,46,60,000 towards material damage, CST and transportation cost. Soon after the intimation of loss, on 07.06.2017, the preliminary surveyor immediately visited the affected area on 08.06.2017, inspected the premises and took note of circumstances, cause and extent of loss. It was noted that the stocks of sponge iron stored/lying inside the shed in single heap varying up to height of about 7-8 ft between two furnaces was burning. The material appeared intact although was generating a lot of heat. During the process of disarranging the material, the surveyor observed flames were coming out from the material and some material re-oxidised due to temperature and change its colour. The insured provided the statement of occurrence of loss, own declaration on total stocks of sponge iron stored/lying in factory premises as on date of loss, copies of purchase invoices of sponge iron along with test report, debit note issued by supplier for transportation of material, own declaration on damage stocks of sponge iron in this incident and filed claim form. While the surveyor requested the insured to provide a copy of the stock register to ascertain the movement and consumption of the stock, the insured refused to provide the details, despite repeated requests. With the available records the Net Adjusted Loss was determined by the surveyor as Rs.1,44,63,830 and not admissible to be paid, since the cause of action is not covered under the policy.

17. The generation of high temperature up to the flash point, resulting in fire and subsequent destruction of sponge iron is a matter of record. If the cause of fire is proximity to the furnace, the Complainant ought to have taken necessary measures to prevent the same. Such storage of raw material in the proximity of the furnaces also verges to negligence towards handling of the insured stock of the raw material which is susceptible to such peril. Further, it is also seen that in the event of spread of heat from furnace to certain pieces of the raw material, it is that raw material that would catch fire and would get destroyed. Whereas almost the entire sponge iron raw material was noticed to be generating heat and was emitting fumes at the same time. Thus, the cause of fire was due to reasons beyond the scope of some portion catching fire due to proximity to the furnace. It was evidently on account of spontaneous combustion, which is a chemical reaction within the sponge iron stored in large quantities, for which the material is known to be susceptible. Clearly, the damage and loss was not on account of fire, and the same is due to spontaneous combustion, which is not covered under the policy in question.

18. This is also not a case that the claim under the policy was repudiated on account of any exclusion clause, necessitating the OP to establish that the claim is under exclusion clause and thus repudiated.

This is a case wherein the insurance cover for spontaneous combustion of the sponge iron stored in large quantities was not obtained by the Complainant, either along with the original policy or as an add on cover. Therefore, when once the damage in question had occasioned due to spontaneous combustion and further the policy in question does not include cover for the peril of spontaneous combustion is outside the scope of the instant insurance policy.

19. The role, relevance and evidentiary value of a surveyor’s report have been authoritatively stated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 8 SCC 507, wherein it was held that surveyor reports, being statutorily mandated, are required to be accorded due weight and cannot be lightly disregarded unless shown to suffer from inherent defects, arbitrariness or perversity. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further observed as under:

                          "22. The assessment of loss, claim settlement and relevance of survey report depends on various factors. Whenever a loss is reported by the insured, a loss adjuster, popularly known as loss surveyor, is deputed who assess the loss and issues report known as surveyor report which forms the basis for consideration or otherwise of the claim. Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises. The report of the surveyor could become the basis for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured. There is no disputing the fact that the Surveyor/Surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them. We also add, that, under this Section the insurance company cannot go on appointing Surveyors one after another so as to get a tailor made report to the satisfaction of the concerned officer of the insurance company, if for any reason, the report of the Surveyors is not acceptable, the insurer has to give valid reason for not accepting the report. Scheme of Section 64-UM particularly, of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) would show that the insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor just as a matter of course. If for any valid reason the report of the Surveyor is not acceptable to the insurer may be for the reason if there are inherent defects, if it is found to be arbitrary, excessive, exaggerated etc., it must specify cogent reasons, without which it is not free to appoint second Surveyor or Surveyors till it gets a report which would satisfy its interest. Alternatively, it can be stated that there must be sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of Surveyor/Surveyors. There is no prohibition in the Insurance Act for appointment of second Surveyor by the Insurance Company, but while doing so, the insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting the report of the first Surveyor and the need to appoint second Surveyor."

20. The legal position has been reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 818), wherein it has been held that:

                          "32. It is true that even any inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or which has been undertaken to be performed pursuant to a contract, will fall within the definition of the expression „deficiency‟. But to come within the said parameter, the appellant should be able to establish (i) either that the Surveyor did not comply with the code of conduct in respect of his duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act, in terms of Section 64UM(1A) of the Insurance Act, 1938, as it stood then; or (ii) that the insurer acted arbitrarily in rejecting the whole or a part of the Surveyor’s Report in exercise of the discretion available under the Proviso to section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938.

                          ...

                          37. Two things flow out of the above discussion, They are (i) that the surveyor is governed by a code of conduct, the breach of which may give raise to an allegation of deficiency in service; and (ii) that the discretion vested in the insurer to reject the report of the surveyor in whole or in part, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically and that if so done, there could be an allegation of deficiency in service.

                          38. A Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject the surveyor’s report to forensic examination of its anatomy, just as a civil court could do. Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop."

21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hareshwar Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7033 of 2009 dated 18.08.2021; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 628), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under :

                          "17.......Therefore, in the facts and circumstances herein the surveyors report was submitted as the natural process, the conclusion reached therein is more plausible and reliable rather than the investigation report keeping in view the manner in which the insurer had proceeded in the matter. Hence, the reliance placed on the surveyor's report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted. In that view, the conclusion reached on this aspect by the NCDRC does not call for interference."

                          "18. ... Having considered this aspect, the rate of interest to be awarded in normal circumstance should be commensurate so as to enable the claimant for such benefit for the delayed payment. There is no specific reason for which the NCDRC has thought it fit to award interest at 12% per annum. Therefore, the normal bank rate or thereabout would justify the grant the grant of interest at 9% per annum. Accordingly, the amount as ordered by the NCDRC shall be payable with interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum. To that extent, the order shall stand modified..."

22. In the present case, the surveyor appointed by the OP is an independent and duly licensed professional who inspected the site, called for relevant records, and submitted a reasoned report concluding that the fire incident and loss had occurred due to natural heating, for which sponge iron is susceptible, leading to spontaneous combustion.

Such peril is expressly excluded under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy terms. Other than the assertion that the sponge iron was stored in between the furnaces and it caught fire, the Complainant failed to place on record any cogent material to demonstrate how such storage was resorted to and, further, how when the fire was noticed, almost the entire sponge iron raw material was generating heat and was emitting fumes. The surveyor’s report dated 22.07.2017 does not suffer from any element of arbitrariness, perversity or violation of statutory provisions or professional standards. It is also revealed that while the surveyor requested the insured to provide a copy of the stock register to ascertain the movement and consumption of stocks, they refused to provide these details. In the absence of necessary records, the cause and quantum of loss could not be conclusively established.

23. The burden to prima-facie prove that loss of the insured stock had occasioned due to a covered peril and not entailing failure to exercise reasonable care by the insured to secure the stock, squarely lies on the insured. The Complainant apparently failed to discharge the same. It is an established legal position that an insurance policy is a contract of indemnity and must be construed strictly in accordance with its terms and conditions. Courts and Consumer Fora cannot rewrite the contract or extend coverage on equitable considerations. Mere occurrence of fire or payment of premium does not ipso facto entitle an insured to indemnification unless the loss is proved to fall within the scope of the policy coverage. In view of the foregoing, we find no material on record to conclude that the claim repudiation by the OP was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the policy terms. The repudiation vide letter dated 29.08.2017 was based on a reasoned assessment by the independent surveyor and does not constitute deficiency in service or unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Act.

24. Consequently, Consumer Complaint No. 1180 of 2018 is dismissed.

25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

26. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.