LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-133

FOREST OFFICE Vs. NAGINBHAI KHUSHALBHAI PATEL

Decided On May 10, 2013
Forest Office Appellant
V/S
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.

(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.