REGIONSL TRANSPORT OFFICER Vs. P S RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed by the defendants 2 to 4 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 62 of 1991, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukkottai.

(2.) The plaintiff is the owner of the mini lorry, purchased the same, by availing a bank loan from the 1 st defendant and also executed an agreement of hypothecation in favour of the bank and hypothecating the mini lorry to the bank. The plaintiff committed default in the payment of dues and therefore, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 1985, on the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, and preliminary decree was passed on 7.11.1985 against the plaintiff and his guarantor and final decree was passed on 20.11.1986. It is stated by the plaintiff that after the passing of the final decree, he paid various amounts towards the debt, totalling Rs. 10,431.00. It is further stated that the plaintiffs vehicle was seized by the 2nd defendant for non-payment of Motor Vehicles tax on 25.5.1988 and the custody of the vehicle was entrusted to the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant being a Bailee, kept the vehicle in open ground without taking proper care. When the plaintiff was taking steps to take possession of the vehicle, after paying necessary motor vehicle tax, the first defendant sent a letter to the 2nd defendant on 19.7.1988 requesting the 1st defendant not to release the said vehicle as decree has been obtained and the vehicle has been hypothecated to the bank. The 1 st defendant obliged by refusing to release of the said vehicle and the vehicle was allowed to be in the custody of the 3rd defendant. According to the plaintiff, seizure of the vehicle is illegal.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed E.P. No. 55 of 1997 in O.S. No. 36 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Judge, Pudukottai, for arrest of the plaintiff and his guarantor and also filed E.P. No. 38 of 1988 in O.S. No. 36 of 1985, for attachment of the vehicle and for sale in Court auction. To avoid the sale in Court auction, the plaintiff offered to pay substantial sum to the first defendant on the assurance that if the plaintiff makes such payment, the vehicle would be released. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the first defendant on 24.5.1989 towards decree and also handed-over the Registration Certificate (R.C) of the vehicle and also signed in the necessary forms to enable the first defendant to sell the vehicle to the 3rd parties and settle the decree amount. But, the 1 st defendant did not keep his promise and failed to take any steps to sell the vehicle and appropriating the sale proceeds towards decree amount. The 3rd defendant also failed to keep the vehicle in good condition and the 2nd defendant has not given any opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the motor vehicle tax and take possession of the vehicle and the first defendant also deliberately prevented the release the vehicle by the plaintiff. As a result of the willful act of negligence committed by the defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiff's vehicle has become a scrap. Though, summons were issued by the Court in E.P. No. 38 of 1988, for production of the vehicle into Court, the first defendant did not take any effective steps to sell the vehicle and ultimately, the first defendant not-pressed the E.P. No. 38 of 1988 and filed E.P. No. 79 of 1990 to arrest the guarantor. The guarantor also paid Rs. 5,000/- on 12.9.1990. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant deliberately prevented the plaintiff from taking the vehicle from the 2nd defendant and had the vehicle been sold in public auction immediately after seizure, it would have easily fetched more than Rs. 50,000/-and the willful act of negligence committed by the defendants 1 to 3, the vehicle has become scrap and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay damages of Rs. 50,000/-.