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