MAMTA GURUNG Vs. DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal seeks to assail the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Money Suit No. 240 of 2018 dtd. 26/6/2021 as well as the decree dismissing the suit filed by the appellant herein against the Director, Vigilance Department, Sikkim Police, Government of Sikkim (defendant no.2 in the suit and the sole respondent herein).

(2.) The plaint was filed under Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and styled as suit for recovery of money and other reliefs. The suit was filed against the Managing Director, Sikkim Co-operation Milk Producer's Union (SCMPU) as defendant no.1 and the Director, Vigilance Department, Sikkim Police, Government of Sikkim as defendant no.2. In the plaint, it was the appellant's case that SCMPU had auctioned a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration no. SK-02/A-0524 (the vehicle) on 16/2/2007 in which she participated and was declared the highest bidder. The appellant states that on 16/2/2007, she purchased the vehicle in the auction for a total consideration of Rs.1,01,000.00. It is alleged that although the appellant was declared the real owner of the vehicle the SCMPU has failed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the appellant and continues to be recorded in the name of the original owner. It is the appellant's case that the purchase of the vehicle was for the purpose of plying a taxi by Ratan Kumar Gurung (younger brother of the appellant), as he was unemployed. It is asserted that in the month of May 2007, the defendant no.2 had illegally and forcefully taken away the said vehicle from the makeshift garage of the appellant along with the ignition key, documents, etc., without specifying valid reason or giving any prior notice. Ever since then the vehicle had been in the custody of the respondent. The appellant had requested for handing over the vehicle or refund the money paid by the appellant to the SCMPU but in vain. The property seizure memo by which the respondent seized the vehicle was also annexed to the plaint. It is the case of the appellant that her brother Ratan Kumar Gurung could have earned a sum of Rs.26,64,000.00 with the use of the vehicle as per the Table provided in paragraph 11 thereof. The Table is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(3.) The appellant further states that the respondent filed a case against her husband and others before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, East Sikkim at Gangtok, being Sessions Trial (Vig) case No. 1 of 2011, in which he was convicted under sec. 420 read with sec. 120B and Sec. 13(1)(d)(ii) punishable under sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 for the offence under sec. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of five months. According to the appellant herself, the gravemen of the prosecution case was that the vehicle which belonged to SCMPU was disposed of for a sum of Rs.1,01,000.00 by her husband. The appellant claims that in appeal before this court, by a judgment dtd. 9/8/2015 (sic, 9/6/2015) in Crl. Appeal No. 9 of 2014 (Dr. Kamal Gurung vs. State of Sikkim), the appellant's husband was acquitted of the charges. The appellant states that she is entitled to damages for mental torture, harassment and financial losses which she and her family had suffered and continues to undergo due to the wrongful acts of the respondent. It is claimed that the amount of Rs.26,64,000.00 is liable to be paid to her by the respondent for loss of earning for last 11 years and Rs.10,00,000.00 as damages for mental sufferings, agonies, torture and harassment. It is claimed that a notice was issued to the SCMPU as well as the respondent demanding from both, payment of Rs.36,64,000.00. It is claimed that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 1/5/2007 when the respondent seized the vehicle from the appellant and also on 9/8/2015 (sic, 9/6/2015) when this court acquitted the appellant's husband. It is claimed that cause of action arose when the appellant sent a notice under sec. 80 of the CPC to the respondent. On those pleadings, the appellant claimed the following reliefs:-