Vadodara Municipal Corporation vs Thakorebhai Chandulal Shah
2022 Latest Caselaw 9746 Guj

      C/SA/40/2001                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 40 of 2001


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                     VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                                 Versus
                       THAKOREBHAI CHANDULAL SHAH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV G DESAI(290) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
(MR RD RAVAL)(716) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                             Date : 01/12/2022
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal arises out of the impugned

judgment and order dated 13.4.2000 in Regular Civil Appeal

No.69 of 1992 passed by the learned District Judge,

Vadodara.

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

2. It is the case of the respondent plaintiff that the suit

came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff herein against

appellants in damages caused to him due to negligent act

on behalf of the appellant's employee. The respondent was

the owner of Water Trolley selling cold water to the public

within the limits of Raopura Ward of Vadodara. It is alleged

that the Ward Officer of the appellants illegally and

unauthorisedly confiscated his Water Trolley. The

respondent-plaintiff approached the superior authorities.

However, he could not get back his Water Trolley.

3. It is further the case of the respondent plaintiff that

the Water Trolley was not returned to the plaintiff

deliberately, and therefore, economic crime was committed

by the appellant herein. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter,

served notice on the appellants herein calling upon them to

take immediate action for the payment of damages. It was

claimed by him @ Rs.50/- per day and to arrange the

immediate release of the Water Trolley. Despite, the service

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

of legal notice, the appellant herein neither denied nor

replied to the said notice. The respondent-plaintiff filed the

present suit and claimed Rs.5,250/- towards damages along

with Rs.50/- per day towards loss of income from the date

of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal

amount. It was further prayed in the suit to direct the

appellant herein to return back the Water Trolley and award

interest on the quantum of damages @ 12% annually.

Summons came to be served to all the defendants. The

appellants herein contested the suit. Evidence came to be

lead by the parties. By judgment and order dated

31.07.1986, the Joint District Judge (SD) and JMFC,

Vadodara partly allowed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.

The appellants-defendants herein were directed to return

the Water Trolley seized by the Ward Officer to the

respondent-plaintiff within one month. It is further directed

that the appellants to pay Rs.500/- to the respondent-

plaintiff towards compensation.

4. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that aggrieved

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

the respondent-plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.69 of

1992 before the District Judge, Baroda. By the impugned

judgment and order dated 13.04.2000, the Lower Appellate

Court partly allowed the appeal and held that the

respondent plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.500/- towards

damages of water Trolley and Rs.4,200/- towards loss of

income from the Water Trolley. Accordingly, the respondent

plaintiff was held to be entitled for a total amount of

Rs.4,700/- with running interest @ 9% annually from the

appellants herein.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the

appellant herein has preferred the present Second Appeal.

6. Vide order dated 26.12.2001, this Court was pleased to

admit the Second Appeal on the following questions of law:

"1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 13th April 2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1992 passed by the learned District Judge is legal and valid ?

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

2. Whether the learned District Judge is right in awarding the loss of income not only from the date of seizure of the trolley till the date of the suit, but also from the date of the suit till the return of the trolley even though the suit was filed in the year 1976 and further directing pay interest at the rate of 9.00 percent per annum with running interest ?

3. Whether the learned District Judge is within his jurisdiction to grant the loss of income for the period after the filing of the suit and interest even prior to the date for which the loss of income has been assessed?"

7. Mr.Pranav Desai, learned advocate for the appellants

submits that the Courts below erred in deciding that the

respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.600/- per year

from the date of seized the Water Trolley. He is further

submits that Courts below also erred in coming into

conclusion that the Water Trolley was not in a working

condition when it was returned. It is further submitted that

there was no evidence on record to establish that the

damage was caused to the Water Trolley. It is further

submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove

his loss on income and therefore, the Lower Appellate Court

erred in awarding damages and learned trial Court had

rightly awarded Rs.500/- towards damages by way of cost.

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

He submits that since the respondent-plaintiff had failed to

prove his loss of income, the damages have been awarded

only on presumption and surmises. He, therefore, submits

that the Second Appeal be allowed.

8. Heard learned advocate for the appellants.

9. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the

plaintiff is entitled for damages in view of the action taken

by the appellants herein. The respondent was selling cold

water to the general public by operating his Cold Water

Trolley. No substantial question of law is raised in the

present Second Appeal. The judgment of the Courts below

are the concurrent and based on the evidence on record. No

interference is called for. Accordingly Second Appeal stands

dismissed.

10. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the

appellants that the appellants have already deposited

decreetal amount of Rs.20,000/- in this Court. Further this

C/SA/40/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

Court vide order dated 26.12.2001 was pleased to direct to

release the said amount to the respondent-plaintiff after

giving an undertaking. Accordingly the respondent-plaintiff

has withdrawn the decreetal amount.

Disposed of accordingly.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ALI