FOREST OFFICE Vs. NAGINBHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-133
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on May 10,2013

Forest Office Appellant
VERSUS
Naginbhai Khushalbhai Patel Respondents

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.