Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MALIKARJUNAPPA SHIVMURTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 36 JT 1995 (9) 341
1995 SCALE (7)325
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
It is not is dispute that the truck of the appellant
was seized for non-payment of the tax under Motor Vehicles
Act and he has still not discharged the liability. The only
question is whether the State is vicariously liable for
damages for seizure of the vehicle. The trial court though
found that the seizure was illegal due to incompetency of
the officer to seize the vehicle, refused to grant the
relief of damages on the ground that the appellant
contributed to the damages since there was neither a stay by
any competent court to take delivery of possession of the
truck to the appellant nor the appellant made any attempt to
take possession of the truck. On appeal, the High Court
reversed the finding of the incompetence of the officer to
seize the truck. It found that the police officer was
competent in law to take possession of the vehicle for the
purpose of enforcing the liability to pay tax under Motor
Vehicles Act. It concurred with contributory negligence on
the part of the appellant. Thus this appeal by special leave
against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay
in Appeal No.301/69, dated 28.4.1977.
In view of the admitted position that the appellant has
not discharged the liability to pay the tax, the obligation
still subsists. The seizure for enforcement of the tax
liability is, therefore, valid in law. The finding that the
appellant had in fact contributed for the damages suffered
by him due to latches on his part, namely, neither he
attempted to take possession and there is no stay on the
delivery of the possession nor make use of the vehicle is
also a finding of fact. Under those circumstances, the State
is not vicariously liable to pay the damages to the
appellant.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2