NIKKA RAM Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,53,948/- against defendants No. 1 to 4. The cause of action, as stated in the plaint, may be summed up thus. Plaintiff is an Ex-serviceman. He purchased a Mini Truck DCM Toyota on 13.5.1991 by raising a loan of Rs.3,12,000/- from H.P. Financial Corporation and the H.P. Ex- servicemen's Corporation. Defendant No. 2 is brother-in-law (Sala) of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2. Both being the relatives of the plaintiff, approached him that the truck be given to them for being managed and operated and assured that they would regularly pay the instalments of the loan to the H.P. Financial Corporation and would also maintain record of income and expenditure. Since defendant No. 1 knew driving and defendants No. 1 and 2 were not having any source of income, the plaintiff took pity upon them and agreed to their proposal. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in connivance with defendants No. 3 and 4, got prepared a document dated 1.8.1991 and obtained plaintiff's signatures on the said document. Defendants No. 3 and 4 connived with defendants No. 1 and 2 in the sense that in spite of their knowing that the signatures of the plaintiff had been obtained on that document without making him understand the contents thereof, attested that document. On the strength of that document, which was represented to be only power of attorney authorizing defendant No. 1 to drive, manage and operate the truck, possession of the truck was taken over by defendant No. 1. He started operating the truck and also paid a few loan instalments, but thereafter stopped paying the same. When the plaintiff came to know about non-payment of instalments of loan, he cancelled the power of attorney through a notice dated 2.9.1997. On receipt of the notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff and assured that all the instalments, due to the Financial Corporation, shall be paid soon and account of income from the operation of the truck rendered. Upon such assurance the plaintiff allowed defendant No. 1 to continue to operate the truck. However, the defendants did not honour the assurance.

(2.) ON 11.4.1994 through an affidavit sworn on the said date, defendant No. 1 with a view to cheating the plaintiff, sold the truck for Rs.3,50,000/- to one Daroga Ram and received a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him as earnest money and misappropriated that amount of money. When the vehicle had been with Daroga Ram, on account of the aforesaid fraudulent transfer in his favour by defendant No. 1, an accident took place resulting in injury to a third party. That third party filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which the plaintiff, being the registered owner of the vehicle, was impleaded. The Tribunal ordered him to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation. The plaintiff having no money to pay the compensation, award was sent to the Collector, Hamirpur for execution and the plaintiff apprehended that his movable and immovable property would be attached by the Collector in execution of the said award.

(3.) THE plaintiff has sought a declaration that the power of attorney, dated 1.8.1991, purportedly executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1, is fabricated, false and unconscionable, besides seeking a decree for recovery of money. He has claimed Rs.9,39,285/-, on account of the money now due to the H.P. Financial Corporation on account of the loan and the interest due thereon, Rs.64,663/-, on account of the money spent on repair of the vehicle and payment of token tax, Insurance premium etc., Rs.50,000/-, which has been awarded against him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by way of compensation, Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses for defending various proceedings and Rs.5.00 lacs as general damages.