Coal Weight Shortage Dispute Resolution India — Sensor Evidence System

Every Indian coal plant faces the same situation: truck arrives at the weighbridge short by 1–3 tonnes. The plant claims pilferage. The transporter claims measurement variance. Without sensor evidence, neither party can prove their case — and the dispute ends in stalemate.

Multiplied across 100–500 trucks per day, unresolved weight shortages represent crore-scale monthly losses that are silently absorbed as "measurement variance."

Why Disputes Are Unresolvable Without Sensor Data

A weight shortage at the weighbridge can result from three causes:

Pilferage en route — material physically removed at a halt

Moisture loss — legitimate weight reduction from evaporation during transit

Weighbridge variance — calibration differences between mine and plant scales

Without sensor data, causes 1, 2, and 3 are indistinguishable. Transporters always claim 2 or 3. Plants always suspect 1. The dispute has no resolution.

With IoT activity sensing data, cause 1 is definitively identified or excluded. If the sensor log shows no unloading event outside the plant geofence, the shortage is legitimate variance. If it shows an unloading event at a specific GPS coordinate, the dispute has irrefutable evidence.

The Sensor Evidence Package

For every trip, Intugine's system preserves:

GPS track: Complete route from mine to plant with timestamps

Activity sensor log: Every physical activity event classified (transit, loading, idle, unloading)

Halt analysis: Every halt with location type, duration, and activity assessment

Confidence score: Statistical certainty of each activity classification

Satellite imagery: Location context for every flagged halt

Analyst notes: Control tower review and escalation record

This package is issued to both plant and transporter on demand — creating an objective record that replaces the word-vs-word dispute dynamic.

Using Sensor Evidence for Transporter Penalties

Most coal supply contracts include shortage penalty clauses — but enforcing them requires evidence that the shortage was due to pilferage rather than natural variance.

With sensor evidence:

Penalty notices supported by GPS coordinates, sensor data, and satellite imagery

Pattern evidence across multiple trips strengthens individual incident claims

Transporter cannot credibly claim variance when sensor log shows physical discharge event

FIR Filing and Insurance Claims

Sensor evidence packages from Intugine have been used to support:

FIR filing with local police for cargo theft

Insurance company claims for in-transit cargo losses

Arbitration proceedings for large-value transporter disputes

The key element: sensor data is timestamped, location-tagged, and stored immutably — creating a chain of custody that holds up in formal dispute proceedings.