Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[iv] Thereafter, there was joint meetings between Condrad, representative of the defendant and the AC service provider to investigate the cause of the accident on 04.04.2017. However, there was no conclusive proof for the cause of the accident and the AC service provider denied that the cause of fire accident was due to gas leakage in the AC. However, till date the cause of the fire was not identified. The defendant vide letter dated 21.04.2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:30:42 pm ) terminated the lease agreement on giving 30 days notice. The defendant has also mentioned in the said letter that she would recover Rs.9 lakhs towards renovation cost from the plaintiff. It is never agreed that the plaintiff is the sole reason for the fire accident. According to them, out of Rs.15 lakhs security deposit, Rs.5 lakhs would be adjusted towards rent for two months for March and April 2017. Hence, the suit has been filed for the remaining sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has made vain attempts to cover-up the negligence of the occupant of the premises belonging to the defendant, owing to which the fire accident happened on 31.03.2017, causing extensive damage to the premises and the defendant incurred Rs.19,61,375/- to set the house in order. The insurance amount claimed was a sum of Rs.3,34,921/-. After adjusting Rs.10,00,000/- from the caution deposit paid by the plaintiff, the defendant incurred a loss of a sum of Rs.6,26,454/-. The fire accident was not due to the fault on the part of the defendant. According to the defendant, the gas leakage cannot be the reason for the fire. It is a green https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:30:42 pm ) gas and it is not inflammable. Even in the meeting held on 04.04.2017, nominee of the plaintiff and representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant, it was specifically explained by the AC technicians that gas leakage could not have been the reason for fire accident, as the gas is not inflammable. The plaintiff neither denied nor disputed any of its technician for inspection. Even all the email communications since 21.04.2017, the defendant had always consistently cited the report, which was never disputed by the plaintiff. The nominee of the plaintiff and its representatives who came in face with authors in the meeting held on 04.04.2017 had not disputed the report. According to the defendant, she had incurred a sum of Rs.9,61,375/- towards renovation of the premises, and insurance claim was only a sum of Rs.3,34,921/ after adjusting the same in Rs.10 lakhs cash deposit made by the plaintiff, the defendant incurred a loss of a sum of Rs.6,26,454/-. The fire accident was solely due to the negligence on the part of the plaintiff and there is no fault on the part of the defendant. Hence, the defendant claims counter claim a sum of Rs.9,17,755/-.

16. At any event, when the cause of the fire accident itself has not been established as against the plaintiff's employee, when the expert report found that they could not ascertain the cause of fire accident and negligence has not been established on the part of the plaintiff's employee, the defendant now cannot claim exorbitant amount towards counter claim. Particularly on the basis of self serving documents. Even assuming that some payments have been made to one Surendra Enterprises under Ex.B.14, that will not lead to the fact that the fire accident was only due to the negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

22. Further it is also relevant to note that though the lease agreement was terminated in view of the fire accident as per Ex.A.4 notice dated 21.04.2017, the parties also exchanged correspondences even thereafter and there was also minutes recorded to find out the cause of the accident. All these facts clearly indicate that in fact the parties were intended to arrive at a settlement and find out who was responsible for the fire accident. In view of the same, this Court of the view that mere delay in refund of security deposit, contractual rate of interest of 12% cannot be slapped on the defendant. Hence, this Court is of the view that the suit ought to have been decreed only for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% from 01.05.2017. This Court is of the view that interest claimed by the plaintiff is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 05:30:42 pm ) against contractual rate. That apart, the very nature of the correspondences between the parties to find out the cause of fire indicate that the delay was not deliberate on the part of the defendant. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to interest only from the date of suit alone and not before that. It is an admitted case of the parties that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs alone is payable by the defendant towards refundable security deposit. Though Rs.15 lakhs has been received as security deposit, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has to be adjusted towards two months rents. Hence, after termination of the tenancy, the defendant has to return only Rs.10 lakhs and suit has been filed in the year 2019. In the meanwhile, there were correspondences between the parties to find out the cause of fire accident and there was no consensus ad idem arrived between the parties. In such view of the matter, interest claimed by the plaintiff over and above contractual rate cannot be sustained. The points are answered accordingly.