Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 371 (TS)

Venishetti Sadashivudu v. State of Telangana

2020-03-11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM

body2020
ORDER : 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 alongwith 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 6.00 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 OS No. 136 of 1984 against the respondent authorities before the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge's Court at Warangal for recovery of auto rickshaw and damages. The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 27.1.1989, awarded Rs. 10/- 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/- towards damage caused to the parts of auto rickshaw, apart from Rs. 2,241.05 ps. towards costs of the suit. 3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also by non-returning of the vehicle to him inspite 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/- per day towards loss of earnings, and also ought to have awarded Rs. 15,800/- with interest towards damages. The appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 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/- per day from 8.3.1983 to 16.8.1983, and damages at Rs. 15,800/- 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/- towards damages, and Rs. 10/- 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. 4. 5,000/- towards damages, and Rs. 10/- 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. 4. Now, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition with a twofold grievance; firstly, the limitation period of 12 years to file execution petition has expired as the judgment of the Trial Court being dated 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. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Rammohan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent Sub-Inspector of Police. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents 3 and 4 had seized the subject vehicle, without conducting any panchanama and without assigning reasons. According to him, the respondent officials are obliged under law to return the subject vehicle atleast after the decree of the civil Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court which they failed to do, hence, they are liable to pay the compensation in accordance with law. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that no interference is warranted with the judgment and decree of the civil Court as well as the Appellate Court, as the Hon'ble Courts have come to a right conclusion after careful scrutiny of the material available. 8. It is stated in Paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent Sub-Inspector of Police that during Maoist blast in 2001, some records and property of Hanamkonda Police Station were damaged, which includes the petitioner's vehicle, which is the subject-matter of Crime No. 455 of 2001 of Hanamkonda Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 436, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of E.S. Act, also got damaged, and the said crime ended in acquittal on 6.8.2007. 9. The facts are not in dispute: The petitioner's auto rickshaw Registration No. ATT 7895 was seized by the respondent-Police on 8.3.1983, and the vehicle was not returned thereafter. 9. The facts are not in dispute: The petitioner's auto rickshaw Registration No. ATT 7895 was seized by the respondent-Police on 8.3.1983, and the vehicle was not returned thereafter. The petitioner approached the Trial Court by filing a suit OS No. 136 of 1984, and the Trial Court after due enquiry awarded compensation of Rs. 10/- per day from 16.8.1983, apart from awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and costs of the suit- as stated supra, by judgment and decree dated 27.1.1989. Challenging the quantum of compensation and also non-returning of his auto rickshaw, the petitioner filed an appeal, AS No. 1339 of 1996, which ended in" dismissal, thereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court stood affirmed. 10. Having considered the respective submissions and the counter-affidavit, wherein it is placed on record that the auto rickshaw bearing No. ATT 7895 was damaged in the Maoist blasts that occurred in Hanamkonda Police Station in the year 2001, it would be impractical to return the seized vehicle which got destroyed in Maoist blast. Further, the subject auto rickshaw having been registered vide Registration Certificate dated 7.5.1982 (Exhibit A5 before the Trial Court), the maximum validity of the auto rickshaw could be till the year 1997, subject to fitness of the vehicle in all aspects. 11. Taking into consideration the maximum lifetime of an auto rickshaw which is fifteen years, as the vehicle was seized in the year 1983, the loss of earnings on the auto rickshaw would be for 14 years. It is to be noted that the auto rickshaw being a transport vehicle, it requires regular servicing and maintenance and the operating costs would considerably increase with time due to wear and tear of parts of the auto rickshaw. 12. However, without deducting any amounts towards such servicing and maintenance and operating costs, and even taking the rate of Rs. 10/- per day as awarded by the Trial Court, for 14 years period, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 50,400/- (i.e. Rs. 10/- per day x 30 days x 12 months x 14 years). 13. 12. However, without deducting any amounts towards such servicing and maintenance and operating costs, and even taking the rate of Rs. 10/- per day as awarded by the Trial Court, for 14 years period, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 50,400/- (i.e. Rs. 10/- per day x 30 days x 12 months x 14 years). 13. Taking into consideration the shelf-life of the auto which is 15 years i.e. till the year 1997, and considering the delay in payment of compensation, and further considering that the subject vehicle got damaged in the Maoist blast that occurred in Hanamkonda Police Station in the year 2001 and to give a quietus to the issue, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall pay twice the compensation i.e. Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rupees One lakh eight thousand only), within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.