VENISHETTI SADASHIVUDU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in releasing the vehicle bearing Registration No.ATT 7895 to the petitioner along with costs awarded by the civil Court, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject vehicle. It is his case that on 8/3/1983 at 06.00 P.M., Hanamkonda Police seized his auto rickshaw without assigning any reasons and the vehicle was neither produced before the Court nor returned to him. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.S.No.136 of 1984 against the respondent authorities before the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Warangal for recovery of auto rickshaw and damages. The trial Court, by judgment and decree dtd. 27/1/1989, awarded Rs.10.00 per day from 16/8/1983 till the date of handing over of the auto rickshaw to the petitioner; and also awarded Rs.5,000.00 towards damage caused to the parts of auto rickshaw, apart from Rs.2241.05 Ps. towards costs of the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also by nonreturning of the vehicle to him in spite of the decree of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court vide Appeal Suit No.1339 of 1996. In the appeal, the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have granted Rs.100.00 per day towards loss of earnings, and also ought to have awarded Rs.15,800.00 with interest towards damages. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dtd. 29/4/2013, observing that the petitioner ought to have sought execution of the decree passed by the trial Court. With respect to the claims of the petitioner for loss of earnings at Rs.100.00 per day from 8/3/1983 to 16/8/1983, and damages at Rs.15,800.00 with interest, it was observed that the Court below had taken into consideration the Commissioner's report with respect to the claim for damages and as there was no proof of earnings as claimed by the petitioner, the trial Court has reasonably awarded Rs.5,000.00 towards damages, and Rs.10.00 per day to be recovered from the respondents from 16/8/1983 till handing over of the auto to the petitioner, and therefore there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Now, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition with a two-fold grievance; firstly, the limitation period of 12 years to file execution petition has expired as the judgment of the trial Court being dtd. 27/1/1989, and the appeal having been disposed of by this Court on 29/4/2013; and secondly, the respondents have not paid the compensation amounts as awarded by the trial Court and also not returned his auto rickshaw.