H.N.SETH, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT , National Small Scale Industries Corpn. Ltd. has come up in appeal against the judgement of Civil Judge Agra, dated Oct. 29, 1966 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,687 as damages for the loss suffered by them an account of a fire broke out in bungalow No. 17 Mall Road, Agra Cantt on 5-6-1963. There is also before us a cross-objection by the plaintiffs, Bishambharnath and others, who claim that their suit for damages should have been decreed for a sum of Rs. 56,800/- as claimed by them in the plaint and that the decree under appeal should be modified accordingly.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS claim to be the owners of bungalow no. 17 Mall Road, Agra Cantt, which had been leased out to the defendant on payment of Rs. 520 per month as rent. Main building of the bungalow was fairly old and had thatched roofing. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant carried an the business in shoes and in that connection it stored highly inflammable materials in the main building. Even though inflammable articles were being stored in the building, labourers and employees of the defendant had been acting negligently inasmuch as they had, while at work, been indulging in careless habit of smoking cigarettes and Biris and also in using open fire while carrying out certain manufacturing process in that building. Consequently, on the might between 4th and 5th June 1963, a fire broke out which completely gutted the building entailing a loss of Rs. 60,000 to them. This fire, according to the plaintiffs, occurred as a result of negligent and careless handling by the defendant and its employees, and as such the defendant was liable to compensate them for their loss. However, in the plaint, the plaintiffs confined their claim for damages to a sum of Rs. 56,800/- only. The defendant contested the suit and denied that it had in any way, acted carelessly or negligently. It also denied that any inflammable article was being stared in the building and asserted that adequate precaution against fire had been taken by it. It claimed that the building had been let out to it by Messrs. Chhitarmal Ram Dayal and that the plaintiffs were not landlords thereof. According to the defendant, the amount by damages claimed by the plaintiff was grossly exaggerated.
(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on their behalf, the trial court found that in the building which had thatched roof, jute carpets had been spread over the floor and that shoes, rubber soles, plastic bags, wooden crates and papers were being stored therein. There were, besides iron girders, wooden Ballis, for supporting the thatched roof. Below the thatched roof there was cloth ceiling at a height of about 18-20 feet from the floor. While at work the employees of the defendant used to smoke Biris and Cigarettes. Besides this, the defendant also used some fire for the purpose of stamping the shoes brought by the fabricators and approved by it. The trial court found that the fire in this case started from one of the rooms and that it could not be caused either by short circuiting of electric wiring or by some outside source. In the result it concluded that the fire in question must have broken out because of some negligent act on the part of defendants employees and that the defendant was liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs. It assessed the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs as Rs. 17,687/- and decreed their suit accordingly.;