* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 432/2007
Reserved on :15.02.2011
Decided on :10.03.2011
BHARAT TEWARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. B.L. Chawla, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.R. Narayan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
: MOOL CHAND GARG,J
1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 27.08.2007 passed by
the learned ADJ whereby the Learned Additional District judge after
hearing the parties and finding no merit in the Objection Petition filed
by the appellant dismissed the objection petition and upheld the award
passed by the Arbitrator dated 02.08.2006. The appellant, thus being
aggrieved by the order of the Learned Additional District judge has
impugned it before us. Hence the present appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Appellant was allotted a
parking lot at (PRS) Sarojini Nagar Railway Station, New Delhi for a
period of two years w.e.f. 1.5.2003 on a payment of a lump sum amount
of `14,80,005/-. An agreement to that effect was executed between the
parties on 6.5.2003. The parking lot allotted to the appellant consisted
of ground accommodation measuring 770 square meters at the existing
site at the station. The appellant however alleged that he had deposited
four months advance license fee besides a sum of `1,48,000/-towards
security with Northern Railway at the station as per terms and
conditions of the agreement and therefore now no license fee was due
FAO 432/2007 Page 1 of 13
from him.
3. The appellants also alleged that after the allotment of parking
site, he could not utilize the entire parking area, as a wall was
constructed in the parking lot (near new building of reservation) by
Railway Administration. Further on the closure of the gate, the vehicles
were restricted from parking inside the parking lot, thus depriving
appellant of almost half of the parking lot which resulted in loss of
collection of parking charges to him. Appellant was also aggrieved by
the fact that he was left with only an area of 330 sq. meters which he
could use from 8.3.2004 till the end of the contractual period and hence
was deprived of the remaining area of 440 sq. meters.
4. The appellant thus claimed proportionate refund of monthly
license fee/contractual charges of the parking lot which was paid to the
Railway Administration. The appellant further claimed that
proportionate amount payable by the respondent towards the parking
lot came to `26,428.71 per month against the total monthly sum of
`61,667/- and appellant was entitled to refund of monthly sum of
`35,239.29 and the total amount refundable to him by Railway
Administration came to `4,43,811.77 . The appellant also claimed that
he suffered a loss of `2000/- per day in collection of parking charges
from 08.03.2004 onwards and till completion of contractual period in
April, 2005 on account of construction of wall and closure of gate by the
Railway Administration, which came to `60,000/- per month and total
amount for the entire period came to `7,66,000/- hence appellant
claimed to be entitled to the said amount from the Railway
Administration.
5. The appellant thereafter brought these facts to the notice of the
Railway Administration and requested for resolution of the controversy.
The appellant, in this regard, also made a written request for removal of
encroachment and obstruction caused and for making available the
entire parking lot to him during the period of the contract, but
according to appellant even the written request met with no success
and appellant continued to suffer financial loss. Thereafter, on account
of the failure on part of Railway Administration to resolve controversy or
to have dispute settled in accordance with terms of the agreement dated
FAO 432/2007 Page 2 of 13
06.05.2003, the matter was taken for adjudication in a court and
subsequently Railway Administration expressed its willingness to refer
the dispute to the Arbitration of Chief Commercial Manager, Northern
Railway and accordingly petition was filed by the appellant before the
court for appointment of Arbitrator which was disposed of vide order
dated 17.08.2005.
6. Before the Trial Court, the appellant had submitted that he had
filed his claim statement dated 3.3.2006 before the Arbitrator which
was replied by the respondent/Northern Railway and then rejoinder
dated 13.4.2006 was filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator and
thereafter no date of hearing was fixed. According to appellant, in the
case, neither any issue was framed in the arbitral proceedings nor the
appellant was given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his
claim. Further the appellant was also not given an opportunity to
address arguments in the case and as a result of which the appellant
filed an application dated 31.7.2006 thereby requesting Ld. Arbitral
Tribunal for grant of opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his
claim and address oral argument to substantiate the same but the Ld.
Arbitrator did not consider the application dated 31.07.2006 and
thereafter passed the impugned Award dated 2.8.2006 and as such it
was contended by the appellant that the impugned Award was liable to
be set aside on the ground that the appellant was not given adequate
and fair opportunity of being heard in the matter and further that Ld.
Arbitral Tribunal acted in haste as after receiving application dated
31.7.2006, request of the appellant was ignored and Award was passed
on 2.8.2006.
7. It was further contended by the appellant that section 19 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act provide for determination of
rules/procedure and liberty is given to the parties to agree on the
procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the
proceedings and also entitle the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in
the manner it considers appropriate, if the parties fail to agree to the
same but in the present case no such opportunity was given to the
parties by the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the tribunal proceeded to
make the award of his own after filing of rejoinder dated 13.4.2006 .
FAO 432/2007 Page 3 of 13
8. It was further contended by the appellant that section 24 of the
act further provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties the
arbitral tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings for
presentation of evidence or oral arguments or whether the proceedings
shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other materials,
provided that arbitral tribunal shall hold oral hearings on a request by
any party but in this case the Arbitrator had not given any opportunity
to the appellant and had overlooked his application dated 31.07.2006
and had passed the impugned order.
9. On the other hand respondent, opposing the maintainability of
the objection petition submitted that the objection petition was not
maintainable and was beyond the scope of provisions of section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and further that the section
34 (2) of the Act stipulates the grounds on which an Arbitral Award can
be set aside by the court. It was further submitted that the objections
were not maintainable as the objector was seeking reappraisal of the
evidence and the material which the parties had produced before Ld.
Arbitrator and further that such reappraisal of the evidence and the
material by the court was not permissible in law. It was also contended
by the respondent that Arbitrator was the judge of facts and the law
and further that the court was not competent to sit as a court of appeal
to scrutinize the evidence produced before learned Arbitrator and to
come to its own conclusion on facts and the law.
10. Respondent further submitted that during inspection of area on
31.1.2005, it was found that the appellant had encroached upon
additional area and the actual area available with the appellant was in
two parts i.e. part A comprising of 312.09 sq. meters and part B of 540
sq. meters, however, the total area occupied by the appellant was
852.09 sq. meters and the same was measured in presence of the
appellant and the site plan was duly signed by the him. Thus it was
accordingly submitted by the respondent that total area of 852.09 Sq.
meters which was being used by the appellant was against allotted area
of 770 Sq. meters. Respondent also submitted that the appellant was
given adequate and fair opportunity of being heard and also that due
opportunity was given due opportunity to adduce evidence and address
FAO 432/2007 Page 4 of 13
arguments.
11. After hearing the parties, the Ld. ADJ had observed here as
under:-
24. Learned Arbitrator at page 2 of the Award has categorically
mentioned as under :-”AND WHEREAS both the parties have
given their undertaking in writing that they have been
given/afforded full opportunity to represent their case and have
nothing more to produce/say in the matter and have further
requested to make and publish the Award”
25. Ld. Arbitrator has further observed as follows :-
”AFTER having heard and fully considered all arguments and
evidence of the parties concerning the said disputes and
differences and having gone through all the materials, papers and
documents, and having considered all the matter submitted to me
in connection with the aforesaid disputes and differences”
26. After considering the material on record and relying upon the
authorities as relied upon by Ld counsel for respondent no. 1 I
am of opinion that this court cannot act as a court of appeal and
to reappraise the facts and evidence adduced during the arbitral
proceedings and it is to be seen whether adequate and fair
opportunity of being heard has been given to both the parties by
Arbitrator.
27. The impugned Award shows that only two hearings were held
by Ld. Arbitrator before passing impugned Award. First hearing
was held on 24.3.2006 and on the said date the representative of
Northern Railway filed reply and copy of same was supplied to the
claimant and the claimant asked for 15 days to go through the
reply of the Northern Railway and accordingly second hearing was
held on 13.4.2006 and on which date counter was filed by the
claimant and copy of same was supplied to the representative of
the railway and on that day a copy of joint survey report was also
supplied to claimant on his demand.
28. Furthermore the proceedings dated 24.3.2006 and 13.4.2006
were also signed by claimant Sh Bharat Tewari and the
proceedings dated 13.4.2006 clearly shows that claimant has
raised no other point to add to what has already been given by
him and whereas on the said date counsel for railways had also
indicated that he has no other fact to be placed before Arbitrator.
29. In the proceedings dated 13.4.2006 it is also mentioned by
Arbitrator that a copy of joint survey report dated 31.1.2005 as
well as plan was prepared in the presence of the petitioner
showing that the petitioner is using parking site at two places i.e.
site A and Site B having measurement mentioned earlier. 30.
When the petitioner has himself appeared before the Arbitrator
FAO 432/2007 Page 5 of 13
and has indicated that no other point is to be added and no other
document is to be submitted and as such I find no force in the
arguments raised by Ld. counsel for petitioner that adequate and
fair opportunity of being heard was not given by Arbitrator and I
am of opinion that the petitioner is only interested in delaying the
matter and is raising a futile controversy.
31. Moreover, I also find no weight in the contention of counsel
for petitioner that no hearing was given by the Arbitrator on the
application dated 31.7.2006 sent to the Arbitrator by the counsel
for objector by regd. AD post. In this regard a perusal of the
arbitration proceedings held by Arbitrator clearly shows that
Arbitrator has been vigilant in protecting the envelope and the
same shows that said application was received by the Arbitrator
on 2.8.2006 and that the Award is also passed on the same date.
Firstly the said application is not signed by the petitioner and
furthermore on none of the date fixed by the Arbitrator for
hearing, Sh. B. L. Chawla Adv. had appeared before the
Arbitrator. I am accordingly of the opinion that Arbitrator has
rightly decided not to give any weight to the representation dated
31.7.2006.
12. Thus aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Learned
Additional District Judge, appellant has now appealed before us.
13. In his written submission, the learned counsel for the appellant
has primarily raised the plea that the application dated 31.07.2006 sent
by them seeking an opportunity to adduce evidence and address
arguments in the matter upon receipt of which the learned Arbitrator
passed the award dated 02.08.2006 was not correct. It has been
submitted that the provisions contained under Section 19 and 24 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were ignored by the Arbitrator
inasmuch as fair and reasonable opportunity to contest the arbitral
proceedings were denied to the appellant.
14. It is also the case of the appellant that the Arbitrator has also
gone beyond the scope of submissions to arbitration and has failed to
appreciate the controversy raised by the appellant who was only for
refund of the license fee for the area which was reduced out of the area
allotted to him to the extent of 440 sq. mts. for the period 08.03.2004 to
30.04.2005. According to the appellant, the Arbitrator went wrong in
observing that no loss was caused to the contractor in terms of the
recovery of parking fees from the customer whereas the claim was for
the refund of proportionate refund of the license fee. The appellant also
FAO 432/2007 Page 6 of 13
submits that even the learned ADJ was wrong in holding that the
application dated 31.07.2006 was not signed by the appellant despite
the said application having been signed by the counsel for the
appellant.
15. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondent
that in this matter, the Arbitrator gave full opportunity to the parties. It
is only after the appellant took a stand that he is not to address any
other point, the award was passed. No doubt, an application was filed
on 31.07.2006 but the said application was basically an afterthought
and it was not even signed by the appellant. It is, thus, submitted that
there is no error in the decision given by the Arbitrator. There is no
infirmity in the approach adopted by the Arbitrator or the decision given
by the learned ADJ. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by
the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
16. I have heard the parties and have also perused the impugned
order as well as the award passed by the Arbitrator.
17. Though it is correct that the Arbitrator had given only two
hearings to the parties i.e 24.03.2006 and 13.04.2006 but the
proceedings of in these two hearings goes to show that the Arbitrator
had given sufficient opportunity to both the parties to present their
case. In this regard, I would like to quote the order sheet dated
13.04.2006 passed by the Arbitrator wherein the appellant had
appeared before the Arbitrator and had accepted that no other point or
document was to be submitted. Hence the objection taken by the
appellant that fair opportunity was not given to him to present his case
is not correct.
18. The order dated 13.04.2006 is quoted here under:-
Arbitration meeting held on 13.4.2006 at 15.00 hrs., was
attended by:
1. Shri Bharat Tiwari - Contractor
2. Shri K.D.Sharma - Railway Advocate
3. Shri Arun Shankar - Assistant Commercial
Manager, Delhi Division,
New Delhi
4. Shri R.C.Dhiman- Chief Office
Superintendent/Commercial, Delhi
FAO 432/2007 Page 7 of 13
Division, New Delhi
Rejoinder was filed by Shri Bharat Tiwari, and a copy of the
same was handed over to the representative of Commercial
Department of Delhi Division.
In the above-mentioned rejoinder given by Shri Bharat
Tiwari, it has been indicated that the Joint Survey Report
was not handed over along with the rejoinder filed earlier by
Railways which was given along with the additional points
on 22.04.2006. A copy of the same was handed over to Shri
Bharat Tiwari. Photocopy of the same was also placed before
the ArbitratorProceedings:-
Counsel for the Railways pointed out that in the Plaint filed
by Shri Bharat Tiwari there was no mention that out of the
area allotted as part of the contract, some portion was raised
and was like a footpath, which could not be used.
Shri Bharat Tiwari agreed that the issue regarding
availability of footpath was not mentioned in the plaint, but
it was mentioned verbally before the Court of Addl. District
Judge, Delhi Tis Hazari.
Shri Bharat Tiwari indicated that he has no further points to
add to what has already been given by him.
Counsel for the Railways indicated that he has no other facts
to be placed before the Arbitrator”
19. Further the objection taken regarding the application dated
31.07.2006 that the Arbitrator had not heard the application, it is
observed that the Arbitrator was aware of the application as he had
been vigilant in protecting the same, however the perusal of the
application shows that the appellant had not put his signatures on the
application which raises doubt on the veracity of it, further in none of
the hearing before the Arbitrator the Advocate B.L Chawla appeared,
which shows that the appellant and his advocate himself were not
serious with the application. Hence the Arbitrator was right in not
giving weightage to the application.
20. It may be also observed that the Arbitrator while delivering the
award has considered the impact of reduction of the area as well as
user of excess area by the appellant which goes to show that the total
FAO 432/2007 Page 8 of 13
area which the appellant had been using was more than the area for
which he was allowed to do parking business. In this regard, the
observation made by the Arbitrator on the first issue are relevant. The
same are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference:-
“a) 1st Issue:
“Whether applicant has been deprived of an area of 440 sq.
Mts. Since 8.3.2004 as claimed by him, &
Whether railway’s contention is to be accepted that the
applicant has occupied an area of 852.09 Sq. Mts., i.e. 82.09
Sq. Mts., extra as against 770 Sq. mts., given as per the
contract”?
It is not disputed that 770 sq. mts., of area was to be given
to the plaintiff as per the contract. This is also mentioned in
the agreement executed between the plaintiff and the
Railways. The applicant has, however claimed that the area
was reduced on 8.3.2004 to only 330 sq. mts., i.e. reduced
by 440 sq. mts. In support of this contention, the claimant
has given no proof of measurement or joint signatures with
the railway authorities or any letter from the railways to
substantiate the claim that the area of 440 sq. mts., was
taken away by the railways on 8.3.2004. They have,
however, represented again and again on this issue.
The railways, on the other hand, have claimed that the
applicant occupied an area of 852.09 sq. mts., w.e.f.
1.5.2003 against 770 sq. mts., of area allotted for the
parking contract. It has been mentioned by the railways
that during measurement of the area on 31.1.2005 on the
request of party, it was found that prior to 8.3.2004, the
actual area available with the applicant was in two separate
parts, which totaled to 852.09 sq. mts. The contention that
this area was measured in presence of the applicant and Site
Plan duly signed by him on 31.1.2005 cannot be made
relevant for the period prior to 8.3.2004. It may be true that
the area was made available in two parts where the parking
contractor was operating from. What is relevant is whether
the contractor was initially using a total area of 852.09 sq.
mts., but this has to be proved by records. As per the joint
survey done on 31.1.2005, it is brought out that the area
initially used by the parking Contractor (Claimant) was
852.09 sq. mts. It is difficult to accept and believe that the
parties could know with certainty as to what was the status
of actual occupation of the area during the period 8 months
earlier. If the Parking Contractor (Claimant) ahs encroached
on an additional area, the Railways (respondents) should
have given notices for vacation of the unauthorized land.
None of this had been brought out on record in the
FAO 432/2007 Page 9 of 13
Arbitration proceedings by the Railways. The Railway had
also not raised this issue before the learned ADJ. I find it
difficult to accept this contention of railways, which in any
case, has been disputed by the applicant in his counter to
the rejoinder.”
21. Regarding the actual loss suffered by the appellant on account of
reduction of parking area, the Arbitrator has further observed as under:
“In the claim made by the petitioner, the only reason
mentioned for reduction in the contractual amount is by
linking the value of contract with the land area allotted. The
claimant has accordingly claimed that once a specific area
has been reduced, the contractual amount should be
proportionately revised downwards.
The railways have countered this argument by having a
survey conducted of the cycles, scooters, cars parked during
3-day timings i.e. 10:00 hours, 14:00 hours and 18:00 hours
(These are especially peak timings for parking) for a period of
7 days i.e. from 4.2.2006 to 10.2.2006. The period of survey
is beyond the contractual period and, therefore, the initial
reaction is to teat as irrelevant. A close look of the survey
report shows that the representative of contractor has also
signed the survey report and hence it is proved that initial
contract was valid only up to 30.04.05; this was, however,
extended much beyond this period as a new contact could
not be finalized. The existing contractor, therefore,
participated in the survey. The survey report brings out that
the space available caters to parking of 125 scooters. That
is, if one car is equated to 3 scooters for the purpose of
working out the requirement of total area, the total area
available after the reduction in space was for 125 scooter
parking.
As per the number of cycles, scooters and cars parked,
(taking one car requiring an area equivalent to parking of
three scooters), the space available is much more as
compared to the number of cycles. Scooters & cars parked
at any given time at any given date of the survey. As per the
survey report, the parking area had a substantial vacant
space during the peak timings on all the 7 days of the survey
– the remaining vacant space available was equal to the
parking of 50-100 more scooters.
The land area given is to be used only for parking of
cycles, scooters or cars. After reducing the area, if the
space for parking is adequate for the requirement,
there would obviously be no loss to the contractor in
terms of recovery of parking fees or the customers.
This issue is decided against the applicant.”
FAO 432/2007 Page 10 of 13
22. It is a matter of record that before filing the application dated
31.07.2006, at no stage prior thereto any request was made by the
appellant or his counsel that the appellant wanted to lead any evidence.
The application was received by the Arbitrator on the same day when he
made the award and, therefore, the Arbitrator has not taken any
cognizance of such an application which, of course, was a device to
somehow delay the proceedings and bring the material on record which
was never sought to be brought by the appellant.
23. An Arbitral forum is selected by the parties as per their choice. In
this case, the Arbitrator has been appointed after the appellant agreed
for appointment of the Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the
contract between the parties. Before the Arbitrator both the parties
have filed their claims and counter-claims. Both the parties have stated
that whatever has been stated by them in their pleadings is the only
thing that they wish to state. None of the parties have led any evidence.
The application dated 31.07.2006 was received by the Arbitrator on the
date when he passed the award.
24. No doubt, there was a wall constructed at a place where, the
parking lot was allotted to the appellant and which reduced the place
available for using as a parking lot by the appellant but it is also a fact
that the appellant had also been using another portion of the parking
lot unauthorizedly and, therefore, total area used by him was about
852.09 sq. meters instead of 770 sq. meters. Moreover, there was no
loss to the appellant on account of reduction of area as apparent from a
reading of survey report. The relevant part of the survey report is re-
produced hereunder:-
“3 to 5. The party had submitted that some railway
employee came to PRS Parking near new PRS building and
constructed a concrete wall at the covered parking side near
new PRS building and due to the closer of gate, vehicles
cannot be parked inside the parking. He further stated that
this situation is effecting collection of parking charges and
loss of revenue to him and approximate half of the area has
become unutilized due to closing of gate. On the receipt of
the representation of the party, efforts were made to conduct
a joint inspection immediately but the party could have
made available himself on 31.01.2005. As such the
inspection was conducted on the same day. During
FAO 432/2007 Page 11 of 13
inspection, it was noticed that prior to 08.03.2004, 852.09
sq. mtrs. area was used by the contractor against the
allotted area of 770 sq. mtrs i.e. 82.09 sq. mtrs extra area
was used by the contractor upto 08.03.04 and after
08.03.2004 the area in use was 540 sq. mtrs. Area was
measured in the presence of the contractor and site plan was
signed by him also on 31.01.2005. As per para 2 of the
agreement, the railway administration reserve the right to
alter location and measurement of the said land if necessary
without assigning any reason and no compensation will be
granted to the licensee on this account.
Since, the applicant has encroached extra land upto
08.03.2004, as para 3(a) of the agreement, the licensee is
liable to pay the damage to railway administration @12% of
the marketing value of the land.
There is no loss in collection of the parking charge caused to
the parking contractor due to closer of gate and construction
of wall. In this connection, a survey was conducted from
04.02.2006 to 10.02.2006. During the survey it was found
that the area available with the contractor was not fully
occupied with vehicles even during peak hours. More space
was available for parking more vehicles. Details of survey
enclosed. There was no congestion and adequate area was
available to accommodate more vehicles thus there was no
loss on account of less area.
The reserve price for parking to allot contract was fixed on
the basis of number of car/scooter/cycle expected for
parking and revenue earned. The contract was not given on
the basis of recovery of land license fee per sq. mtrs.
6,7 After receipt of representation from party, several
attempts were made to conduct joint inspection in presence
of contractor. On 31.01.05 when the contractor was
available, a joint inspection was conducted and a site plan
was signed by the contractor also. In view of the reason
explained in above para, it is observed that contractor has
not suffered any financial loss. Contractor did not suffer any
financial loss due to the construction of wall, closer of gate
and taken over area from the contractor has encroached
extra area and sufficient area was available with him to
accommodate the volume of vehicular traffic even after
08.03.2004.
8. The claim for refund of license fee of 40 sq mtrs. area
is not admissible as the party has already encroached extra
area measuring 82.09 sq. mtrs from the date of allotment of
contract upto 08.03.04 and there is no loss on account of
less area however, as per para 2 of the agreement, the
railway administration reserve the right to alter location and
FAO 432/2007 Page 12 of 13
measurement of the said land if necessary without assigning
any reason and no compensation will be granted to the
license on this account.
As per para 21(a) of the agreement, right is given only to
the Railway Administration to revise the area and
change in site of parking within the station premises
during the currency of contract.
As per para 15(c) of the agreement, in the event of breach of
agreement or non-observations of any terms and condition,
the licensee would be liable to pay a fine upto maximum of
`1,000/- for single irregularity.”
25. I have also gone through Section 19 and 24 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. However, in view of the proceedings conducted
by the Arbitrator, none of the parties were considering to lead any
evidence and have concluded their points in the form of reply/rejoinder.
Thus, there being no other procedure agreed to between the parties, no
benefit can be taken by the appellant. More so, as per paragraph 2 of
the agreement, the Railway Administration reserved its right to alter
location and measurement of the said land if necessary without
assigning any reason and no compensation will be granted to the
licensee on this account.
26. In these circumstances, the Arbitrator having considered all the
aspects of the matter and having given an award against the appellant
which has been upheld by the learned ADJ calls for no interference by
this Court inasmuch as nothing has been brought to my notice which
may entitle this Court to cause any interference in the order passed by
the learned ADJ who has considered all the aspects of the matter
including the pleadings of the parties and the records as available
before the Arbitrator.
27. Thus, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned ADJ
and consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
28. TCR be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J
MARCH 10, 2011
‘sg/anb’
FAO 432/2007 Page 13 of 13