RAJESH ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of Rs.85 lacs which is disposed of vide order dated 20th July, 2005 passed by R.C.Chopra, J. A decree in the sum of Rs.17,25,000.00 with proportionate costs is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants along with pendente lite and future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The plaintiff has filed review application raising number of pleas on the basis of which contention of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to much more amount than the sum awarded by this court vide aforesaid decree. Notice of this review application was issued by R.C.Chopra, J on 29th July, 2005. However, before the review application could be decided, the Hon'ble Judge retired and that is how this review application was argued before me by the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Before coming to the averments made in the review application, let me, in nutshell, state the case of the plaintiff and the basis on which aforesaid amount is decreed. Mr.Rajesh Arora, the original plaintiff who had filed the suit (since deceased and is represented by the LRs.) had imported a BMW car in the year 1993. After payment of custom duty the car arrived at Delhi. However, on 11th June, 1993, the customs department impounded the said car and thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 111 of the Customs Act. This culminated in confiscation order. Challenging this order, deceased filed a writ petition in this court which was allowed vide judgment dated 19th December, 1997 quashing the show cause notice and directing the defendants to return the car. It was also directed that the plaintiff would be at liberty to move court for award of damages. The defendants' attempt to challenge the Single Bench judgment of this court before the Division Bench as well as before the Supreme Court failed as LPA and SLP filed by the defendants herein were dismissed. On the strength of the observations of this court in judgment dated 19th December, 1997 giving liberty to the plaintiff to claim damages, the plaintiff filed CS(OS) No.2889/2000 claiming a sum of Rs.85 lacs.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the car was detained by the defendants illegally for a period of four years and 204 days and when delivery thereof was given to the plaintiff after the orders of this court, it had suffered dents and scratches all over including windscreens and the glasses on door windows. It was manifest that the said car had been deliberately and intentionally/mishandled by the defendants. It was not even stored/kept safe, secured and protected. because of negligence of the defendants, car was reduced to a heap of junk steel and was no more new nor could be reckoned as a zero mileage vehicle. The plaintiff had to spent lot of money for repair of the car though still it was not completely restored to a new vehicle. Car had depreciated substantially in value and the plaintiff could manage to get only a pittance on its sale. Thus he suffered costs and damage and this was claimed under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_981_ILRDLH15_2006Html1.htm</FRM>