MUSLIARAKATH ABDULLA Vs. K ABDUL AZEEA NAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirur. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs.4,25,622.55 with interest at 15% per annum. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was the driver of the plaintiff. He got employment at Jiddah. His services were terminated in 1986. While returning to India, he had purchased a foreign car for the plaintiff. 10,000 Riyals was paid by the plaintiff through his son inlaw, who was working there. After the car was brought to India, the delivery was delayed on account of customs clearance problems. The plaintiffs spent an amount of Rs. 13,000 for demurrage charges. Rs. 1,82,227.55 was paid as customs duty. Various other amounts had also to be incurred for getting clearance of the car including warehouse charges, battery service charges, charges for registration number etc. The plaintiff spent a total amount of Rs.3,18,223.55 for the car. The defendant intimated the plaintiff that he had paid 530 Riyals at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The balance amount due to the defendant was also paid by the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, a complaint was received in the Regional Transport Office. According to the plaintiff, it was manipulated by the defendant to take the vehicle from the custody of the plaintiff. On the request of the defendant, it was given to him for producing before the R.T. A. The defendant also agreed to transfer the vehicle in the name of the plaintiff after the 'no sale' period was over failing which he undertook to pay the plaintiff the amount of damages. The defendant however applied for duplicate R. C. Book. Knowing about it, the plaintiff filed objections. The defendant did not return the vehicle to the plaintiff and he transferred the vehicle in the name of another person within the 'no sale' period. Hence the suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 4,25,662.55 with interest at 15% per annum.

(2.) The defendant in the written statement admitted the purchase of the car and payment of 10,000 Riyals by the son inlaw of the plaintiff. According to him, he had spent huge amounts for the purchase of the car and the plaintiff did not mention the amount spent by him in the plaint. It was the defendant who spent all the amounts in connection with the delivery of the vehicle. All other allegations in the plaint regarding payment of the amount by the plaintiff were denied in the written statement. The defendant due to want of money sold the vehicle after the 'no sale' period. According to him, 'no sale' period was more than 5 years and the bank guarantee given to the Government was forfeited and the bank instituted O.S. No. 8of 1991 for realisation of the amount. Since the defendant was working as driver of the plaintiff, he had permitted the plaintiff to use the vehicle for some time and at that time the plaintiff took R. C. Book and other relevant documents from the car and the same was not returned when requested by the defendant. Therefore, he applied for duplicate R. C. Book and sold the car.

(3.) The Trial Court raised the following issues