MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, (a) wherethrough(s) the plaintiffs suit, for recovery of Rs. 1,93,300/-, as damages, from, the defendants, and, arising from during the period, of, retention, of, the offending tractor, bearing No. HP-34A0509,in the precincts of the defendants concerned, it hence developing mechanical defect(s), as enumerated in paragraph-8 of the application,(b) defects whereof, are, averred to stand sparked, by negligence, and, dereliction(s), of, the contesting defendants, to thereat(s) hence ensure its roadworthiness, (c) rather stood dismissed, hence, by both the learned Courts below. The plaintiff is aggrieved therefrom, and hence, has, through casting the instant Regular Second Appeal, strived to cast, an, onslaught thereon.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed civil suit for the recovery of Rs.1,93,300/- by way of damages against the defendants alleging that he is in the registered owner of the Tractor bearing registration No. HP-34A-0509. The tractor in question alongwith its keys and documents was impounded by the officials of defendant No. 4 in connection with FIR No. 22 of 2004, registered at P.S. Kullu, for the commission of offences pubnishable under Section 32,33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, as well as under Section 379 of IPC. When the tractor was impounded, it was in good condition. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act were initiated against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had moved an application for the release of the tractor before the Authorized officer/defendant No. 4, but it was tagged with the proceedings under Section 52-A of the Act. The application of the oplaintiff was dismissed and the tractor in question was ordered to be confiscated to the state of H.P. The plaintiff preferred Revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, and the said revision was accepted on 20.5.2010. The above mentioned tractor was ordered to be released in favour of the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff moved another application alongwith the order of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, for the release of the tractor in question before Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Parvati Forest Division, Shamshi, who vide endorsement, of, 4.6.2010, directed the plaintiff to produce the photo copies of the documents relating to the vehicle inquestion alongwith his identity card for record. The R.C. of the vehicle was in the record file of Criminal case No. 114-1 of 2004 which was decided by the learned CJM, Kullu, on 7.1.2009, therefore, the plaintiff moved application for the release of R.C. before the Court of Ld. CJM, Kullu. The said application was allowed by the Court concerned and the RC of the tractor was order4ed to be released in favour of the plaintiff. Before putting signatures qua the receipt of the tractor, the plaintiff asked the defendant No. 4 to show the condition of the tractor, and plaintiff noticed that the tractor was kept in open ground at Shamshi. The tyres of the tractor were sunk in the mud, and, approximately two feet height grass were grown up beneath and around the tractor. Due to the negligence of the defendant No. 4, the plaintiff, had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,93,300/- on account of repair and spare part charges of the tractor. On 4.8.2010, plaintiff served legal notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendants directing them to pay the damages so incurred by the plaintiff for the repair of spare parts of his tractor. The defendants have given wrong reply to the legal notice. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff against defenants from 20.5.2010, when the Court passed order for the release of tractor in question and secondly on 15.7.2010, when plaintiff firstly came to know about the condition of the tractor, which was under the care and custody of defendant No 4 and on 30.9.2010, when the defendants did not pay heed to the claim of the plaintiff and lastly on 5.10.2010, when the stipulated period of the notice elapsed. Hence the suit for recovery of aforesaid amount.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, whereby the defendants have taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material fats. In the written statement, on merits, the defendants have admitted that the tractor in question had been impounded by defendant No. 4, in connection with FIR no. 22 of 2014, of P.S. Kullu but denied that the said tractor was handed over to defendant No. 4 in good condition. It was averred that plaintiff Man Singh Paul presented the photocopy of R.C. alongwith other supporting documents for the release of the tractor before defendant No. 4 and he issued the release order of the tractor in favour of the plaintiff, but he did not get the same released, rather made lame excuses. It was specifically denied that defendant No. 4 was negligent in keeping the tractor in safe custody. It was specifically pleaded that no damage of any kind had been caused to the tractor of the plaintiff by the defendants and, as such, the defendants are not liable to pay the amount so claimed. More so, the amount claimed is highly and excessive. The defendants have denied that they had given wrong reply to the legal notice.