RAWAT BROTHERS vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

COMPLAINT for a direction to pay the insured amount on the loss of the fishing vessel in the accident that took place on 11.9.1998 at about 3.30 a.m. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows, he availed a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ - from the opposite party for building the body of a motor fishing vessel, Kovila bearing registration No. NDK 1669; that was built utilising the said amount, the total expense for engine and the body was Rs. 11,00,000/ -. The boat was insured with the opposite parties 1 and 2 for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/ - and remitted the first instalment of the premium through 4th opposite party. The policy was for one year from 24.7.1998; while so the boat left at 3.30 a.m. on 11.9.1998 for fishing from Sakthikulangara when it reached near the brake water (Pulimuttu) suddenly the engine stopped on account of mechanical defect, it moved towards the east and hit on the rocks and sank into the sea. Soon after complainant informed the matter to the police, port authorities, Insurance Company and 4th opposite party/Bank. In the morning itself, at about 11 a.m. first and third opposite parties visited the spot and directed the complainant to start salvage operation. Most of the damaged items could be recovered, statements of the crew were recorded by the 3rd opposite party. As per the direction of the Surveyor records including weather reports from Neendakara and from Meteorological Department, Govt. of India, Chennai were submitted. After prolonged discussion, 3rd respondent persuaded the complainant to agree to accept the value of the salvaged item for Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Persuaded by the representation of the 3rd opposite party, that if he agreed for the said value for the salvaged items as suggested by him, he would see the insured sum is disbursed immediately, complainant agreed to accept valuation. But later learnt, the salvaged item would fetch only Rs. 70,000/ -. The said agreement is vitiated as the same was not on the free Will and consent of the complainant. Though he was entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/ - which is the insured amount on total loss basis he was offered only an amount of Rs. 3,72,000/ -; they deducted 40% stating that the vessel went out for fishing when the R flag was hoisted and the wind speed was between 45 and 55 kmph. The second opposite party sent a voucher dated 28.4.1999 directing him to sign same and return it after getting it countersigned by the fourth opposite party for effecting payment. He alleged that the said acts of the opposite parties 1 and 2 would constitute deficiency in service inasmuch as the amount is due to him as per the policy on total loss basis inspite of his demand was not offered. It is further maintained that the acceptance of the said amount by the 4th opposite party cannot in any way affect his right for the relief.

OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 filed joint version and 4th opposite party filed a separate version. 3rd opposite party remained ex parte. In the joint version by the opposite parties 1 and 2 they contend, the complaint is not maintainable, that on the date of accident there was weather warning inspite of that the boat was sent for fishing, that as soon as the information regarding the occurrence reached the opposite parties these opposite parties took all necessary steps, the value of the salvaged items is Rs. 2,10,000/ - which after being convinced complainant accepted and signed; the charge for the salvage operation was Rs. 30,000/ -. The case that the complainant accepted the same on the persuasion by the 3rd opposite party is not correct; the allegation that the salvage value is only 70,000/ - is not true or correct; complainant accepted the said valuation in the agreement and signed its, in the letter dated 24.5.1999 did not raise any dispute as regards the amount 24.5.1999. The amount offered is the correct amount due; Rs. 63,500/ - (sic.) already been paid to the State Bank of Travancore. Sakthikulangara by the voucher dated 5.5.1999. In the case of total loss the insured is entitled to the insured amount after deductions as per the norms and policy conditions. After deducting the salvage value the amount due was only 6,20,000/ -; but the complainant is not entitled to any amount because of violation of policy condition. Boat was sent for fishing ignoring the weather warning by the R flag; yet, as a goodwill gesture the opposite parties settled the claim on a non -standard basis for 60% of the amount, from the said amount the 2nd and 3rd premiums were deducted. The complainant is not eligible for anything more than the said amount. From the weather report on the relevant time it could be seen that the complainant committed breach of warranty condition. They wanted dismissal of the complaint.

IN the version by the 4th opposite party they admitted that a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ - was granted to the complainant, he executed an agreement on hypothecation pledging the boat in favour of the 4th opposite party. The interest payable on the loan was 17.25% per annum. Two other persons executed deed of guarantee and also equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, an amount of Rs. 10,32,458/ - with interest with quarterly rest is due as on 31.3.1999; since the complainant failed to remit premium to safeguard the interest of this 4th opposite party they remitted the insurance premium and the said amount was debited in the loan of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 informed the 60% of the insured amount was settled on a non -standard basis taking into account the vessel ventured to the sea ignoring the weather warning, an amount of Rs. 3,39,240/ - was forwarded to them by the first opposite party with a discharge voucher stating that the salvage value was fixed at Rs. 2,10,000/ -. Since the loan account was running highly irregular and classified as non -performing asset, they executed discharge voucher pursuant to which a cheque dated 7.5.1999, was issued to them. A sum of over Rs. 6 lakhs with interest as on 1.10.1998 is still due from the complainant. The allegation against this opposite party is not true or correct. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. They wanted dismissal of the complaint.

ON the side of the complainant Exts. P1 to P9 were produced and the complainant was examined as P.W. 1. On the side of the opposite parties Ext. R1 to Ext. R22 were produced. R.W. 1 was examined on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, and R.W. 2 was examined on behalf of the 4th opposite party. A commission was issued for conducting sale of the salvage; Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report. Points that would arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ? (2) Whether there was breach of warranty as contended by opposite parties 1 and 2 ? (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the insured amount on total loss basis ? (4) Reliefs and costs. Point No 1 : The claim is based on Ext. P1 policy. The policy is admitted. Complainants case is that the boat Kovila capsized and was lost in the early morning of 11.9.1998 when the policy was in force and, therefore, himself is entitled to be paid the policy amount on total loss basis. The merit of the claim, whether the complaint is entitled to any relief because of the alleged breach of warranty condition has to be considered in the other points. All that to be observed is, since the claim is based on a policy and the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) the same would be availing service for consideration as understood under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act, he has to be found that the complaint is maintainable. The point is found in favour of the complainant. Point Nos. 2 and 3 :

IN the circumstance of the case these points can be considered together. The fact that the boat Kovila met with an accident near about 3.30 a.m. on 11.9.1998 and it capsized at Sakthikulangara is not in dispute. One of the defences by opposite parties 1 and 2 as has already been noted is, that the complainant is not entitled to any relief on the basis of total loss since he has committed breach of warranty conditions. What is sought to be maintained by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is, ignoring the weather warning the vessel ventured for fishing on that particular day resulting in the aforesaid accident. This is challenged by the complainant. Thus it becomes necessary to see whether as a matter of fact there was weather warning prohibiting vessel like the one is question from going for fishing. Reliance was mde on Exts. R10, R10(a) and Ext. R12. Complainant has also produced Exts. P2, P2(a) and Ext. P3. Ext. R9 Surveyor report incidentally mentions that there was breach of warranty as the vessel went for fishing ignoring the weather warning. Ext. R10(a) is the weather report at sea off Sakthikulangara, Pulimutt on 11.9.1998, it is stated that the wind speed is 19.28 kmph (10 -15 knots) gusting to 37 kmph occasionally, weather cloudy with light rains pells, sea condition is stated to be generally moderate. It is stated that the weather warning for fishermen for strong winds from north -westerly to westerly direction, speed occasionally reaching 45 -55 kmph was in force off Sakthikulangara from 0000 to 1400 hours on 11.9.1998. Ext. R10 is the supplementary report by the Surveyor stating that in the aforesaid weather condition, there was breach of weather warranty. Ext. R11(a) is a letter from the office of the Director of Fisheries, Thiruvananthapuram to the Surveyor; it states that the R Flag indicates and implies that the vessels are prohibited from engaging in fishing activities as long as the signals are displayed, and Ext. R12 is the communication from the Port Office, Neendakara, Asramam, Kollam to the Surveyor, same also says that they get weather telegrams from Meteorological Centre on the basis of which they would hoist R Flag in the signal station Flag staff and during night a red light would be hoisted on the Flag staff. The argument is, having regard to the aforesaid weather reports and communication as regards the hoisting of Red flag and display of the red light during night, there was sufficient warning not to venture for fishing during the said period and since the complainant ventured for fishing violating the same, has committed breach of warranty condition. This is met by the learned Counsel for the complainant relying on Exts. P2, P2(a), and Exts. P8(a) and P8(b). Ext. P2 is the weather certificate on 10.9.1998 which states that at 8 a.m. weather was cloudy, sea condition was calm and at 4 p.m. weather was fine and sea was calm, it also states that R flag was hoisted at 16.25 hours. Ext. P2(a) is the weather certificate on 11.9.1998 at 8 a.m., it states, there is drizziling and the sea was calm, and at 4 p.m. the weather was cloudy but sea was calm; it states that red flag was hoisted at the signal station.

IT could be treated that there was weather warning. Ext. P8(a) is the communication by the Dy. Director General of Mateorology, Chennai which encloses weather warning for fishermen that is Ext. P8(b). Ext. P8(b) states that the criteria for issue of weather warning are, (1) weather warning for fishermen is issued when the wind speed in the range of 45 -55 kmph; (2) squally weather with wind speed exceeding 55 -65 kmph with more or less ''continuous'' rain, (3) Gale force winds with speed exceeding 65 kmph and state of sea very rough or more. Thereafter it states, ''specific advice to fishermen not to venture into open sea is given when fisheries warnings are issued for conditions 2, 3 and 4 stated above. Appropriate port warning signals will also be hoisted under such conditions''. Then it proceeds to say, ''If warnings are issued for wind speed between 45 and 55 kmph, fishermen going out into the sea in small country boats have to proceed with caution at their own risk. Mechanical vessels however could go ahead with their fishing operations without any hindrance. No port warning messages are issued under such conditions''. Admittedly the vessel in question was a mechanical vessel and the weather condition on that particular occasion wind speed reached 45 -55 kmph. Then as per the direction issued by the Dy. Director General of Meteorology, Chennai, when the wind speed is on 45 -55 kmph that need not prevent a mechanised vessel from involving in fishing operation. Incidentally it would be necessary to note Ext. P9 communication from the Port Officer, Neendakara it states that they are following the weather warning telegrams issued by the Meteorological Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and Chennai. An Ext. P8(a) along with Ext. P8(b) would show that the same was issued from Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai. Having regard to the aforesaid material and argument by the learned Counsel for the complainant that there was no breach of warranty by the complainant has to be upheld, for admittedly the vessel in question was a mechanised vessel. It could go for fishing in the aforesaid weather condition as per Ext. P8(b). There is still another aspect to be noted and that is according to the opposite parties 1 and 2 they did not repudiate the claim but it settled it on non -standard basis for 60% of the insured amount deducting value of the salvage. All that they say is as to this aspect in para 8 of their version is, though as a consequence of committing breach of warranty the claim could be repudiated, with a view to maintain good consumer relation they decided to settle the claim on non -standard basis, taken 60% of the liability and deducting 40% for the violation of the condition of the policy. What is the criteria for settling the claim at a non -standard basis at 60% is not revealed. No material also is produced. In such circumstance their opting to settle the claim for 60% of the insured amount could be treated as inconsistent with their case of breach of warranty. All that to be stated in this connection is, opposite parties 1 and 2 are not successful in substantiating their case that there was breach of warranty condition.

ONCE it is found that the case of breach of warranty conditions cannot be sustained, since admittedly the peril took place as stated by the complainant and it resulted in a total loss, the complainant ordinarily should be eligible for the insured amount, for the opposite parties do not have a case that the complainant is entitled to only a lesser value though they have a case that from the amount due, value of salvage has to be deducted as the salvage was taken over by the complainant. Opposite parties 1 and 2 would maintain that the complainant took over the salvage agreeing its value at Rs. 2,10,000/ - out of which Rs. 30,000/ - towards expenditure for salvage operation has to be deducted, the balance net salvage value is Rs. 1,80,000/ -. According to them from the said amount 40% has to be deducted. When the said net salvage value of Rs. 1,80,000/ - is deducted from the insured amount of Rs. 8,00,000/ - the balance would be Rs. 6,20,000/ - as the complainant is eligible only for 60% of the total value on deducting the 40%, the balance is Rs. 3,72,000/ -. From that again Rs. 32,760/ - which they claim as two instalments of premium has to be deducted. Thus according to them the amount due is only Rs. 3,39,240/ - which they claim has been paid to the 4th opposite party to the credit of the complainant. As has pointed out, it is not permissible to deduct 40% from the insured amount as the case of breach of warranty is not acceptable.

THE next item of deduction is the value of the salvage. The main piece of evidence relied on by the opposite party in support of their case that the complainant took over the salvage item fixing its value at Rs. 2,10,000/ - is Ext. R13; complainant admits to his having affixed his signature in Ext. R13 which is described as letter of agreement. The case of the complainant with respect to Ext. R13 is, he happened to agree on the persuasion of the Surveyor. It is stated that after a long discussion with the Surveyor, Mr. S. Sreekumar he agrees to take over the salvaged portion of the machinery for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/ - and total salvage operational cost is Rs. 30,000/ -. In this connection reliance was also made on Ext. R17, the copy of the letter addressed to the complainant by the Surveyor; it says that there were discussions for four days but could not come to a conclusion as to the value of the salvaged item. It proceeds to state that the Company is pressing for report and that the complainant has to give in writing the maximum offer for the salvaged items within two days time. This is dated 1.12.1998. In this connection reliance was also made by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 on Ext. R1 notice issued by the complainant to urge, there is no challenge therein against the aforesaid Ext. R13. But the learned Counsel for the complainant maintains, opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot rely on Ext. R13 because the same is vitiated as the same cannot be treated as one which has the free consent of the complainant. Learned Counsel pointed out that the complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint paras 4 and 5 that it was because of the influence and fraud practised by the Surveyor that he signed the said document. He swears to that effect in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief -examination. In this context he made reliance on the cross -examination of the complainant as P.W. 1. In the cross -examination he insisted, Ext. R13 copy of which is Ext. P5 was prepared by the Surveyor and proceeded to swear, the Surveyor said, unless he signed Ext. R13 there would be delay in getting the insured amount and that he signed the same at the residence of the Surveyor, where he prepared the same and kept it. He maintains, he believed the Surveyor had signed Ext. R13. He also swears, when the amount after deductions was offered, he realised that the salvage value fixed is high and he cannot utilise the salvage. Not only there is allegation that at the instance and persuasion of the Surveyor he happened to sign Ex. R13, he swears that he signed the same believing the Surveyor who was known to him; that it was for enabling him to get the insured amount without delay that he fixed his signature in Ext. R13, a typed matter. Now in the context, it is also urged that the financial position of the complainant at that time also is relevant to judge whether he could have affixed his signature in such a material with the object of getting that amount speedily.

AS has noted, the complainant availed loan from the Bank for making the vessel. They have instituted a suit against the complainant and guarantors who are his wife and mother -in -law for an amount of Rs. 8,70,049/ -. The said suit was filed after Ext. R13. What is to be noted is, as on the date of the suit, according to the 4th opposite party, over eight lakhs was due. Still another important aspect to note is, P.W. 1 in his cross -examination says that his wife and mother -in -law who are the guarantors had also created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the said loan. His endeavour to remit the loan by operating the vessel came to an end by the capsizing of the vessel. The condition of the mind of one who was indebted to the Bank along with his wife and mother -in -law, who were being insisted to clear the loan can be envisaged he would have been eager to clear the debt at the earliest. The case of the complainant in this regard has to be viewed and appreciated against the aforesaid backdrop. A person who is placed in the position of the complainant in such a position would be inclined to accept the advice of another in whom he had faith. Exts. R13 and R17 would show that there were discussions; there was occasion for persuasion to sign Ext. R13. In this connection the learned Counsel for the complainant made reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI =AIR 1999 SC 3027, United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills & Ors. Of course, that was a case where the insured executed a discharge voucher; the case was the same as obtained as a result of fraud, undue influence, etc. In dealing with the same Supreme Court in para 6 held : ''If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However, where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the Commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstance of each case'' (emphasis supplied). In that case since the discharge voucher was voluntarily executed and the complainant did not allege fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like the Supreme Court held, in the absence of pleading and evidence the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint. In the decision of the National Commission in Ramasesha Rao and Boiled Rice Mill v. The United India Insurance Company, I (1993) CPJ 56 (NC) , the National Commission held, with an aim to avoid delay in payment and litigation if the insured agreed to accept a lesser amount that cannot preclude the insured from insisting for the full amount. Here, as has already been noted, there is specific pleading, there is also evidence as to the circumstance in which Ext. R13 came to be executed. We have already adverted to the same.

BUT it was attempted by the learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 to maintain that this decision cannot have application as the same was rendered as to the effect of execution of discharge voucher. Ext. R13 letter of agreement by the complainant is with respect to salvage item which he took over for consideration as stated therein. It has to be noted that even the obiter of the Supreme Court is binding. The question is as to whether Ext. R13 is the result of coercive bargaining, Surveyor who is the 3rd opposite party does not contest and also did not enter the box. The complainant has not only filed affidavit but has also stood the cross -examination. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision can be made applicable with respect to transaction arising in a contract of insurance. He can show that he did not execute the same under his free Will, and in his endeavour to show the same he relies on the attending circumstances. One of the questions in this connection is, it is not as if there is no evidence as to the actual value of the salvage item. Ext. R13 fixes the value at Rs. 2,10,000/ -. As per the order on I.A. 1149/1999, an expert commission was appointed for selling the salvage item by public auction. The said petition was moved by the complainant. The Commissioner is a chartered engineer, approved valuer, in C1 report he details those who participated in the auction and the amount that the salvaged items could fetch at the auction. Ext. C1 states that the successful bidders offer was Rs. 63,500/ - which amount was remitted to the Bank. Thus the value of the salvaged item is only Rs. 63,500/ - whereas the value fixed in Ext. R13 is Rs. 2,10,000/ -. The said circumstance also has got relevance. Unless he was very much pressed for the amount he could not have accepted the salvage item for such a big amount which is three times what salvaged item could fetch. One of the arguments advanced against the same is Ext. R13 was on 22.12.1998 and the auction was on 30.7.2000, that means about two years after the execution of Ext. R13. Therefore, it was attempted to maintain that the lesser value was due to the passage of time. Two years time in the case machinery cannot bring out a fall in price to such a low level. Since there is nothing to show that machine was used during the period it has to be inferred, the same was kept idle. That may affect its quality; consequently, we consider the value as on the date of execution of Ext. R13 could be fixed at 10% per year above the value and the same would be Rs. 12,700/ -. That has to be added to Rs. 63,500/ -; the total value thus would be Rs. 76,200/ -. From the salvage value expenses for the salvage operation has to be deducted. Salvage expenses even according to the opposite party was Rs. 30,000/ - and after deducting the 30,000/ - the net salvage value would be Rs. 46,200/ - when the said amount is deducted from the insured amount, the balance is Rs. 7,53,800/ -. Another claim also is stated to have been deducted; Rs. 32,760/ - which the opposite parties 1 and 2 claim is due towards two instalments of the premium. But para 17 of the version by the 4th opposite party states, as the complainant failed to remit the insurance amount to safeguard their interest they remitted the insurance premium and the amounts were debited in the loan account of the complainant. There cannot be double payment of the premium. R.W. 2 is the Manager of the 4th opposite party/Bank; in his chief -examination he reiterated that the Bank used to remit the premium and the amount would be debited in the account of the complainant. First and second opposite parties did not cross -examine R.W. 4 on that question. In this connection it has to be noted that there is no case for the opposite parties 1 and 2 that when the peril occurred the policy was in a lapsed condition on account of the failure to remit the premium on due dates. In such circumstances, it is not open to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deduct amount again towards the premium; if at all, they have any right to collect the two instalments, they will have their remedy against the Bank. It cannot then be said that an amount of Rs. 32,760/ - is due towards premia from the complainant for the Bank states they have paid the premium to the Insurance Company. What is now projected is, that the Bank has executed discharge voucher on receiving Rs. 3,39,240/ - arrived at by deducting aforesaid two instalments also. That cannot be binding on the complainant. Now it cannot be found particularly in the context of the evidence of R.W. 2 and the nature of the plea that still two instalments are due from the complainant, as has stated early, if at all, opposite parties 1 and 2 want any remedy for the same two premiums that can only be against the Bank which claims to have remitted the amount. To conclude the complainant is eligible for the insured amount of eight lakhs on total loss basis, from the same value of the salvag item of Rs. 46,200/ - has to be deducted, so deducted the balance due would be Rs. 7,53,800/ -. The 4th opposite party in its version in paras 19 and 20 admits that Rs. 3,39,240/ - were forwarded with a voucher by the first opposite party and that the said amount was credited to the account of the complainant on 10.5.1999. Ext. R15 receipt is also produced as to the said fact. Therefore, out of the total eligible insured amount the aforesaid Rs. 3,39,240/ - has to be deducted which amount as has been noticed was paid by the first opposite party which was credited by the 4th opposite party in the account of the complainant. The balance amount due as the insurance amount thus would be Rs. 4,14,560/ - (four lakhs fourteen thousand five hundred and sixty only). Since the 4th opposite party has accepted the payment of Rs. 3,39,240/ - from opposite party and credited the same in the account of the complainant, the said amount has to be deducted from the said Rs 7,53,800/ -. The balance now due to the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2 thus is Rs. 4,14,560/ -. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not entitled to deduct 40% on the ground that there was breach of warranty.

THE only question that now remains is as to the interest to be paid on the said amount of Rs. 4,14,560/ -. As regards the obligation to pay interest it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the same should carry interest at 18% because the Bank has claimed interest at the rate of 17.25%. In Ext. P20 suit also the Bank claims interest at 17.25%. In the decision in II (1999) CPJ 4 (SC)=VI =AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2963, Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, New Delhi, the Supreme Court held that the Consumer Fora can award interest applying principle under Section 34, C.P.C. as the said provision is based on justice, equity and good conscience. The Supreme Court held that Forum can grant interest appropriately under the circumstances of each case, and also in lieu of compensation. On settling the claim discharge voucher along with the letter Ext. P6 dated 28.4.1999 was served. Therefore, interest can justifiably be awarded from the said date, from 4/1999. Now so far as rate of interest is concerned, since the Bank charges at 17.25%, in the given circumstance, the said rate can be fixed as interest on the said amount. Points found in favour of the complainant as stated above. Point No. IV : Opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay Rs. 4,14,560/ -, complainant did not admittedly accept any amount or sign the discharge voucher. Therefore, the discharge voucher executed by the Bank cannot be put against the complainant. The said amount of Rs. 4,14,560/ - will bear interest at 17.25% from 4/99. The said amount will be paid to the 4th opposite party by opposite parties 1 and 2; which shall be credited against the liability of the complainant to the 4th opposite party Bank and if there is any balance that would belong to the complainant. Since that complainant is successful as indicated above the complainant shall be entitled to his costs which we fix at Rs. 2,000/ - to be paid by opposite parties 1 and 2. Point found accordingly. In the result, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 4,14,560/ - (four lakhs fourteen thousand five hundred and sixty only) with interest at 17.25% from 4/99 in satisfaction. The fourth opposite party of the balance due from the complainant which shall be credited against the outstanding balance due from the complainant; after such adjustment against outstanding balance due from the complainant, the balance, if any, alone will be payable to the complainant. Since the complainant is successful he shall be entitled to his costs of Rs. 2,000/ - against the opposite parties 1 and 2. Complaint allowed.