MANIK CHAND BOHRA vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

COMPLAINANT Manik Chand Bohra is proprietor of M/s. Tel & Pashu Aahar Udyog, located at B313, Road No. 16, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur wherein cattle feed under the brand name of "Navneet Pashu Aahar" is manufactured. Under a Fire Policy "C" No. 370106/3100075/91 dated 16.5.92 issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office No. 1, Church Road, Jaipur, apart from building & shed, insured stock like Khal, Binda, Churi, rice husk, Decoilla, Calca, rice bran oil cake, Bardana, Gur and similar type of items stored, in process and finished goods stored in open whilst situated/ lying at B-31, Road No. 16, Vishwakarma Area, Jaipur occupied as factory cum godown. COMPLAINANT had paid a total amount of Rs 14,811 /- as premium and the period of insurance was from 23.5.91 to 22.5.92. In the above total amount of premium of Rs. 14,811/- amounts of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 250/- as premium were also included and paid by the complainant for loss arising from spontaneous combustion of the property insured.

IT is alleged that on 3.3.92 it came to the notice of the complainant that insured raw material i.e. de-oiled rice bran, which was stored in godown and in open, was by spontaneous combustion burnt and was damaged. The complainant immediately informed the Insurance Company about this damage and loss. According to the complainant, 1622 bags containing deoiled rice bran each weighing 60 kgs. lying in godown and 1462 bags each weighing 60 kgs. lying in open were damaged. Complainant submitted claim Annexure-2 to the Insurance Company mentioning total actual loss to the extent of Rs. 2,51,654.40 of the raw material damaged. Opposite party No. 2 had appointed P.S.D. & Associates as Surveyor. Shri Prakash Sharma, who was Chartered Accountant and Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the Insurance Company, after due survey, has already submitted his report to the Insurance Company to the effect that there has been a damage to the extent of Rs. 2,51,564.40 to the complainant due to the above reason. However, the complainant received a registered letter dated 12.1.93 from opposite party No. 2 (Annexure 4) whereby the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant that the claim made by the complainant is not covered within the scope of the insurance policy and that the de-oiled rice bran was not damaged by self-ignitrated fire, but by charring on account of process of time. IT is alleged that the complainant was not given any opportunity of hearing before repudiation of his claim. According to the complainant, the Insurance Company has misconstrued the meaning of "spontaneous combustion". The complainant states that in a case of spontaneous combustion, it is not always necessary that there should arise flames during burning by spontaneous combustion. The complainant has also stated that he had himself seen that the de-oiled rice bran in the bags had turned red by fire and smoke was also rising up. The complainant has asserted that the opposite party Insurance Company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the same was outside the scope of contract of insurance. IT is stated that there was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the Insurance Company. Complainant, with these averments, filed the present complainant on 18.3.93 in this State Commission and he has claimed the amount of Rs. 2,51,654.40 on account of the actual loss suffered and has claimed interest at 18% per annum on the said amount with effect from 3.3.92 till payment. Complainant has further claimed Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for economic loss, inconvenience and harrassment etc. caused to him also costs of the complaint. The opposite parties filed their version wherein they have stated that it was clear from the report of M/s. P.S.D. & Associates, Surveyor & Loss Assessor dated 12.5.92 that the goods in the bags had turned black on account of deterioration and melting in the bags. No flames of fire had arisen. According to the opposite parties that under the policy risk of loss arising from fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion is not covered. What is covered by the policy is the loss owing to fire caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion. The opposite parties state that there was neither any fire and nor flames had risen out of fire on 3.3.92 from the burning of the insured goods. The Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the loss was not covered under the policy. It is denied that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor had assessed the actual loss at Rs. 2,51,654.40. According to the Surveyor, had the claim been covered within the scope of policy, an amount of Rs. 2,07,402/- would have been payable to the complainant. It is also said that the complainant had stocked one bag of deoiled rice bran over the other and had not taken any security steps to avoid spontaneous combustion. The bags which were placed at the bottom had turned into black owing to deterioration and melting. Thus, the opposite parties have denied the claim of the complainant.

The complainant at the foot of para 1 of the complaint has referred to special endorsement which is made in the Fire Policy "C" after payment of additional premium covering the risk of loss by spontaneous combustion. The complainant has also produced photocopy of sheet 31 dated 1,7.87 Part III Tariffs Section 10 Special Perils of the Tariff Advisory Committee, Bombay which reads as under :- "Spontaneous Combustion'' Fire Policy A/B/C may be extended to include spontaneous combustion cover, subject to the insertion of the following endorsement wordings: "In consideration of the payment by the insured to the Company of additional premium of Rs. the Company agrees notwithstanding what is stated in the printed Exclusions of this policy to the contrary that the insurance by (item -) of this policy shall extend to include loss or damage by fire only of or to the property injured caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion".

N.B:-The expression "by fire only" in the endorsement above must not be committed under any circumstances. Rates :-The following rates for four categories of commodities as per list in Annexure ''B'' should be charged for the cover. Rate not less than Rs. per mile per annum Category-I (Low or non-existent) 0.25 Category-II (Moderate) 0.50 Category-III (Variable) 0.75 Category-IV (High) 1.00" It is clear from the insurance policy in the present case that additional premiums of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 250/- had been charged by the opposite parties from the complainant to include spontaneous combustion. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the insurance by the policy extend to include loss or damage by fire only of or to the property insured caused by its spontaneous combustion and the expression "by fire only" can under no circumstances be omitted in case of loss or damage to the property caused by its spontaneous combustion. The learned Counsel submitted that in the present case no loss or damage to the insured property was caused by fire and no flames had come out or risen.

THE Insurance Company by its letter dated 12.1.93 repudiated the claim of the complainant by stating that - "THE claim lodged by you does not fall within the scope of the policy because the loss took place due to charring of stock during course of time and not due to selfignited fire in them. We therefore deny our liability in the claim."

It is true that it was Fire Policy ''C'' and the Insurance Company had inter alia undertaken to pay to the complainant insured by value of the property in case the same was destroyed or damaged by fire only caused by spontaneous combustion of the property insured. We may refer to some of the decisions of the National Commission on the point. In M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Original Petition No. 89 of 1991 decided on26.3.92 and reported in I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC)), the complainant had obtained a fire insurance policy for the silo structure as well as for the raw material of oil seeds stored therein. The premium on the policy was split up for the goods (oil seeds) stored in the silo as under : Basic - Rs. 1600/- per thousand. Spontaneous combustion - Rs. 0.25 per thousand. According to the complainant in that case, on the 3rd August, 1990 there was fire due to spontaneous combustion in the goods, stored in the silo. This caused damage to the stocks of mustard seeds stored in the silo. The complainant, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 76,48,548/- on account of damage caused to the stocks in the silo due to spontaneous combustion. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the insurance policy as not falling within the purview of that policy. According to the insurer, there was no evidence of fire in the stocks in the silo, the mustard seeds were damaged due to spontaneous combustion without fire and, therefore, the loss sustained by the insured did not come within the scope of the policy. The National Commission held : "The spontaneous combustion may or may not result in flames, fire is only as aspect of or stage in the combustion process." In scientific literature "combustion" is defined as under: "The burning of any substance, whether it be gassous, liquid or solid. In combustion, a fuel is oxidized, evolving heat and often light." The combustion of solids such as coal and wood occurs in stages. First valotile matter is driven out of the solid by thermal decomposition of the fuel and burns in the air. At usual combustion temperatures, the burning of the hot, solid residue is controlled by the rate at which oxygen of the air diffuses to its surface (Mc-Graw Hill Encyclopaedia of Science & Technology, New York Vol. 3,1982)"

Another text defines "combustion" as under ; "The term combustion signifies the process of burning associated'' generally with fire, flame, the generation of heat and certain products of reaction." (Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Physics, Chief Editor Thewiis Pergaman Press, Oxford, 1961)."

The definition of "Spontaneous Combustion" is also relevant: Spontaneous combustion : This occurs when certain materials are stored in bulk. The oxidizing action of micro organisms often produces the initial heat". As the temperature increases, the air trapped in the material takes over the oxidation process, liberating more heat. Because the heat cannot be dissipated to still more and the rate of oxidation increases. Eventually the material reaches an ignition point and bursts into flames." (Mc Graw Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, New York, Vol. 3, 1982). In the other text "Spontaneous Combustion" has been defined as under : "Slow chemical reactions between the oxidant and fuel or its impurities may locally build up enough heat due to the presence of a thermally non-conductive medium to spontaneously start the combustion." At this stage we may also extract the meaning given to expression "Fire" in Collins English Dictionary-"The state of combustion in which inflammable material burns, producing heat, flames and often smoke." This would indicate that fire develops only at a particular point in the combustion process. In fact the fire or flame is produced only when the point of auto ignition is reached. It is, therefore, evident that the form ''spontaneous combustion'' in the complainant''s report of 3rd August, 1990 cannot be construed to imply that there was no fire.... While repudiating the claim, the Insurance Company attributed the damage to spontaneous combustion without fire. From the definitions of the terms "Combustion" and "Spontaneous Combustion", the dictionary meaning of "Fire" and from the expert opinion recorded above, it would only be natural to presume that the damage to the seeds stock have been caused by fire arising from spontaneous combustion, though high temperature below the ignition point can also cause oxidation and chemical change and bring about thermal degradation of the seeds. Assuming that the ignition point was not reached in this case due to measures taken to smother, combustion at the earliest, and therefore, no fire was caused, can the insurer repudiate the claim. If the contentions of the insured were to be accepted, it would lead to the anamolous, nay absurd situation, that the insured will be disentitled to make a claim for damages, if he takes measures to control combustion at the earliest state and thereby prevent rise in temperature to the ignition point, even though the risk in temperature below the ignition point brings about the thermal degradation of and thus damage the insured material. We have also considered whether the complainant would be entitled to compensation under the policy if it were to be assumed that the respondent''s contention that it was a case of combustion without fire is correct, and, therefore, is not covered by the insurance policy. From a perusal of the insurance policy it is clear that it is a fire policy in which additional premium of 0.25 per thousand over and above the basic rate has been charged for spontaneous combustion. If the basic rate is for the damage by fire simpliciter what is the precise purpose of charging additional premium for spontaneous combustion if the same must result in fire to sustain a claim under the policy. In other words, what is the purpose of charging additional premium if spontaneous combustion without fire is not covered. If the contention of the respondent is to be accepted, this would mean that the risk "spontaneous combustion" is merely tautological inasmuch as it already falls under "Fire" for which basic premium has been prescribed. To the repeated question by us during the hearing, the Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company could not explain for what risk the additional premium for "spontaneous combustion" is charged, if this will be payable only if this leads to fire. It appears that the basic rate of premium covers fire caused by external factors whereas by payment of the additional premium covers fire caused by the spontaneous combustion and thus damage due to auto-ignition were also brought under the insurance. The respondent has sought to support the rejection of the claim by citing the direction of Tariff Advisory Committee on Tariffs relating to special perils. These directions lay down that in respect of spontaneous combustion fire policy shall extend to include loss or damage by the fire only of the property insured provided it is caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion. The directions stress that the expression "fire only" must not be omitted under any circumstances from the policy/- endorsement From the examination of the insurance policy filed before us it is evident that this qualifying note "by fire only" is not incorporated in the policy. Consequently, the directions of the Advisory Committee are of no avail to the respondent. The repudiation of the claim cannot be sustained even if the insurance risk were to be interpreted as sought to be done by the respondent. We may further observe that if it was the intention to exclude damage by spontaneous combustion without fire, as contended by the respondent, this ought to have been stated much more clearly and directly. In any case it has. already been observed that the language used in the insurance policy is unqualified and the rejection of the insurance claim by the respondent was not justified in terms of the insurance policy."

THE next decision of the National Commission on the point is in the case of M/s. Azad Bharat Tobacco Factory v. THE National Insurance Company Ltd. (First Appeal No. 96 of 1992 decided on 15.4.93.). In that case, the complainant firm was engaged in manufacturing tobacco known as "SAUNDA". According to the complainant, the stock worth about Rs. 3.5 lakhs stored in the godown caught fire and the same was completely destroyed in November, 1987. THE Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no fire which damaged the stock. THE Insurance Company took up the plea before the U.P. State Commission that the insurance policy only covered damage due to fire and unless there was burning by flames it was not covered under the policy. U.P. State Commission dismissed the complaint. National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant on the following grounds : "THE Surveyor has said that the incident, which according to insured was of fire; (a) did not emit any smoke, (b) did not spread to any place, nor scorched anything wooden doors, or any other things lying in the godown were neither charred nor burnt (c) No wall, door or ceiling became smoky, nor any charcoal or ash was generated (d) time of its start or termination was not known. After going through the findings recorded by the State Commission and the spot inspection report of the Surveyor, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that the loss occurred on account of fire, the pre-requisite of fire is flames. Surprisingly the complainant has nowhere alleged that at any point of time flames or smoke was noticed in the godown or emanating from it. No fire brigade was called to extinguish the fire nor there is any allegation that the alleged fire was extinguished by employees of the fire brigade. It is not disputed that loss or damage due to natural heating or spontaneous combustion or by its undergoing any heating or drying process are not covered under the insurance policy. It appears that entire stock of tobacco was left on the floor of the godown to undergo natural seasoning in the last week of May, 1987 and was to be taken out for packing into containers in November, 1987. At that time it was noticed by the complainant that the mixture of tobacco had become very hard and was of no use to them. It also appears that the godown had remained unchecked as is clear from the report of the Surveyor. In the light of the above mentioned facts, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim under the policy."

Lastly, reference may be made to the decision of the National Commission in M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Original Petition No. 2 of 1994 decided on 6.5.96 and reported in 1996 NCJ 400). In this case complainant M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd., Gorakhpur was running a sugar mill at Sardar Nagar in the District of Gorakhpur. The complainant had taken a fire insurance policy from the opposite party United India Insurance Co. Ltd. viz., Fire Policy "C" which covers various risks e.g. Fire, lightening, explosion/imposition, riots, strikes etc. for a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. The premium paid on the policy was broken up as follows :- (a) Fire premium @ 1.40 per 1000, and (b) Spontaneous Combustion at 0.25 per 1000 There was a fire in the premises of the complainant''s factory on 11th February, 1991 due to spontaneous combustion as a result of which the entire stock of malasses in tank No. 1 i.e. 46,089.17 quintals was burnt and solidised. The Insurance Company rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no fire due to spontaneous combustion and hence in terms conditions and exclusions of the aforesaid policy of insurance, the loss is not covered. The grievance of the complainant was that by charging additional premium for spontaneous combustion, fire by spontaneous combustion had been covered. National Commission referred to the earlier decision in M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC) (supra) and the scientific definitions of "combustion" as reproduced therein. National Commission then observed as follows : "The case of the Insurance Company was that auto combustion/spontaneous combustion did not cause fire. "Fire" has been defined in Chambers, 20th Century Dictionary as follows : the heat and light of burning : a mass of burning matter, as of fuel in a grate: flame or incandescence : a conflagration firing fuel: a heating apparatus: heat or light due to other causes than burning."

In the concise Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of "fire" has been given as follows : "Active principle operative in combustion, in which substances join chemically with oxygen in air and usually, give out bright light and heat, flame, incandescence." From the above definition of fire given in the two dictionaries, it is clear that fire need not necessarily be accompanied by flame. Fire is a form of heat energy, which cause smoldering, burning, heating, melting and perhaps some few more words. The case of the complainant is that temperature of the molasses tank had risen due to auto-combustion by which the molasses stored in tank No. 1 was burnt and solidised. While repudiating the claim the opposite party attributed the damage to spontaneous combustion without fire. From the definitions of terms "combustion", and spontaneous combustion, and the dictionary meaning of "Fire", it would only be natural to presume that the damage to the Stock of molasses has been caused by fire arising from spontaneous combustion. The complainant had paid additional premium at the rate of 0.25 per thousand for spontaneous combustion over and above the basic rate. If the basic rate for the damage by fire simpliciter covered the risk there was no precise purpose of charging additional premium for spontaneous combustion. As remarked in Roshan Lal''s (supra) by this Commission if the contention of the Insurance Company is to be accepted it would mean that the risk "spontaneous combustion" is merely tautological inasmuch as it already falls under "fire" for which basic premium has been prescribed, we have not been able to understand why the additional premium for "spontaneous combustion" was charged if the loss was payable only if it leads to fire. In the light of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the complainant''s claim by the opposite party cannot be sustained."

It is interesting to note that in the case of M/s. Azad Bharat Tobacco Factory v. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the National Commission had made observation that "prerequisite of fire is flames", but in the case of M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra.) it modified its view and observed on the basis of the definition of "fire" given in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary and Concise Oxford Dictionary, that "fire need not necessarily be accompanied by flame."

THE National Commission in M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. case, substantially followed its earlier decision in Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC). In Webster Dictionary, 1991 Edition, the meaning of "spontaneous" is given as under : "Spontaneous-arising from impulse, not suggested by another and not pre-meditated, happening without external cause or central, the movements of the heart are spontaneous, growing without human intervention, in the wild state."

In Webster Dictionary, 1991 Edition, the meaning of "spontaneous combustion" is mentioned as follows : "Spontaneous Combustion-combustion arising with no direct application of spark or flame. It is due to an internal rise of temperature to the ignition point, usually caused by a slow oxidation process."

Meaning of "Fire" given in Webster is :- "Fire-is a chemical change accompanied by the emission of heat and light and after flame usually a change consisting in the combination of carbon compounds with the oxygen of the air, a mass of material undergoing this change or gotten ready for this, the act of undergoing this chemical change, to go through fire, a conflagration".

AS already stated, apart from the basic premium, the complainant had paid additional premium of Rs. 180/- and Rs. 250/- for covering the risk to the goods by spontaneous combustion at the rate of 0.50 per thousand per annum. In the present case, the complainant has mentioned at the foot of para 1 of the complaint that after covering loss owing to spontaneous combustion, by charging additional premium, a special endorsement in this connection is issued The contents of the special endorsement have been reproduced by the complainant. The complainant has filed copy of insurance policy alongwith endorsement as Annexure-1. The endorsement filed by the complainant is sheet No. 31 dated 1.7.87 of Tariff Advisory Committee. It appears that in the present case, complainant has himself made the Part III-Tariffs Section 10 Special Peril of Spontaneous Combustion as having been issued with the policy. In this enclosure, there exist the note that the expression "by the fire only" in the endorsement must not be omitted under any circumstances. It was very correctly observed by Hon''ble Member Y. Krishan in the decision of the National Commission in M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd., case I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC), that it appears that the basic rate of premium covers fire caused by external factors whereas the payment of the additional premium covers fire caused by spontaneous combustion and thus damage due to auto-ignition were also brought under the insurance. The real question is whether for ''fire'', it is necessary that it should be accompanied by flame. The learned Member Y. Krishan was also very correct in observing in M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd., case I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC), that the dictionary meaning of "fire" indicates that fire develops only at a particular point in the combustion process. In fact the fire or flame is produced only when the point of auto-ignition is reached.

Complainant has stated in para 9 of the complaint that it is not necessary that for occurrence of "fire", that there should be flames as well. Then the complainant stated that he had seen from his own eyes that the bags of rice had turned completely red in colour and smoke was rising therefrom. Complainant''s men by pouring water extinguished the fire.

IN M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills case (supra), it was observed that assuming that the ignition point was not reached in the case due to measures taken to smoother combustion at the earliest, and therefore no fire was caused, can the insurer repudiate the claim ? If the contentions of the insured were to be accepted, it will lead to the anamolous, nay absurd situation that the insured will be disentitled to make a claim for damages, if he takes measures to control combustion at the earliest stage and thereby prevent rise in temperature to the ignition point even through the rise in temperature below the ignition point brings about the thermal degradation of and thus damages the insured material. In the case of M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the National Commission, after reproducing the meaning of the terms "fire" as given in Chamber''s 20th century and Oxford dictionaries, stated that "fire" need not necessaryily be accompanied by flame. Fire is a form of heat energy which causes smoldering, burning, heating, melting and perhaps some few more words. The National Commission in M/s. Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. case (decided on 6.5.96) quoted on the approval its observations in Roshan Lal''s case (supra) that if the basic rate for the damage by fire simpliciter covered the risk there was no precise purpose of charging additional premium for spontaneous combustion. If the contention of the Insurance Company is to be accepted, it would mean that the risk "spontaneous combustion" is merely tautological inasmuch as it already falls under "fire" for which basic premium has been prescribed.

WE are bound by the decisions of the National Commission in M/s. Roshan Lal Oil Mills case and in M/s. Suraya Sugar Mills Ltd. case (supra). There is an old proverb. There is no smoke without fire. Complainant has asserted that he had seen from his own eyes that rice bags had turned deep red like "Angare" and that smoke was coming out of them. He got the fire extinguished by getting water poured over the bags. The entire case of the opposite party in reply to para 10 of the complaint is that according to the decision of the National Commission, for fire, it is necessary that there should be flames. This is misquoting the aforesaid two decisions of the National Commission which is least expected from Counsels representing the Insurance Company. The opposite party has denied the case of the complainant regarding coming out of smoke and pouring of water. It is stated that according to the report of its Surveyor, the de-oiled rice bran bags were stocked and no security measures had been taken for saving them for spontaneous combustion. Bags had been placed one over the other and only those bags which were downwards became degenerated and turned black due to melting. Where is that Surveyor''s report which the opposite party seeks to refer ? The opposite party has not produced the survey report and has withheld its production. It is to be deprecated in strangest terms that document like survey report, which is in possession of the Insurance Company, is withheld from production and its alleged contents are referred to in the version. Presumption ought to be drawn against the Insurance Company which withholds from production material documents. It is not said by the opposite party in its version that the Surveyor had also mentioned in the report that there was no smoke signs noticed by him. It may also be observed that the opposite parties in para No. 5 of their version had stated that the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 2,07,402/- as payable to the complainant. It has been stated that this amount would have been payable to the complainant as the risk covered would have fallen within the scope of the insurance policy. It would thus appear that even according to the opposite parties the loss assessed was to the extent of Rs. 2,07,402/-. It has already been observed that often flames come out of the fire when point of auto-ignition is reached. In view of the decisions of the National Commission and in view of the discussions made above, the risk was covered by the insurance policy and the Insurance Company had charged additional premium to cover the loss caused by spontaneous combustion.

AS to the quantity of the loss, the opposite parties even did not produce the report of the Surveyor in order to show as to how the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.2,07,402/-. There is no reason to doubt the case of the complainant that the loss was to the extent of Rs. 2,51,654.40 and we accept the case of the complainant in this regard in the absence of the survey report which has been withheld by the Insurance Company.

WE, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,51,654.40 with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 3.7.92 till payment. The complainant will get Rs. 1,000/- as costs of this complaint. The opposite parties will make the above payment to the complainant within two months. Complaint allowed with costs.