JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE State is in appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.516 of
1989 awarding a compensation in the sum of Rs.4,85,000/ with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit till
realisation against the appellant for having caused a loss to the
respondent on confiscation of his Truck bearing Registration
No. GTK 5477 and damaging for want of maintenance
during its possession for a period of more than four years, with
the appellant.
(2.)THE respondent before the trial court prayed for damages in the sum of Rs.12,69,643/ under various heads
including the loss suffered by the respondent for the said
period of four years as also reparation charges of the truck to
make it road worthy. The respondent was examined at Exh.36
wherein he came out with the case that the truck in question
was seized by competent authorities on 26.2.1984 against
which appeal was filed in the Court of Sessions at Bharuch
which was allowed and the possession of the truck was
ordered to be handed over to the respondent. Such judgment
and decree was passed on 5.5.1988. The truck came to be
handed over to the respondent on 11.1.1989 in a totally
dilapidated condition; its tyres were deflated; engine was
damaged; there was damage to the chasis as well. The
respondent, after getting the possession of the truck, got it
valued through a valuer, who, after taking into consideration
various aspects, valued the truck at Rs.87,000/. The report
was produced before the trial court.
The respondent testified on oath before the Court that his father who owned the truck was earning Rs.10,000/ per
month from the use of the truck and that due to confiscation
he suffered that loss. It was contended by him in the
testimony that he had suffered a loss of Rs.6.00 lacs to Rs.7.00
lacs. The respondent produced the books of accounts, and in
the crossexamination, he identified the handwriting in the
accounts as that of one Bipinbhai and his father. Other facts
stated by the respondent in his examinationinchief were not
at all challenged.
(3.)THE trial court, upon hearing the parties and considering the evidence and while relying upon the books of account and
the oral testimony of the respondent, passed the impugned
judgment and order decreeing the above amount. It is,
however, noticed from the record that, though, the fact that
respondent suffered a loss on account of appellant's callous
approach in dealing with the truck, the quantum of loss was
not satisfactorily brought on record by laying its basis.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.