b) the primary responsibility lies with the contractor, M/s Hyundai and Gammon (JV) who are responsible for allowing the structure to reach a vulnerable stage without taking adequate precautions and there is a shortfall in the design; c) there were shortcomings in the design for the bridge prepared by M/s SYSTRA and the responsibility for the design lies with M/s SYSTRA; d) M/S COWI, the supervision consultants have not highlighted the shortfall in the design. M/s COWI has not been sufficiently proactive in preventing lapses in workmanship. They have given tacit approvals for major changes without insisting on a proper review of the design; e) The trigger for the collapse appears to be the failure of M/s Freyssinet. Their responsibility must be examined in detail. 1921. We are inclined to accept the appellant’s submission that there is sufficient evidence to justify repudiation of the claim on the basis of the exclusion clause. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence on