MALIKARJUNAPPA SHIVMURTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS HEIRSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

A             MALIKARJUNAPPA SHIVMURTHAPPA SINCE
                     DECEASED BY HIS HEIRS
                                         v.
                         STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                              DECEMBER 12, 1995
B
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

        Torts-Damages--Seizure of motor vehicle for non payment of tax under
  Motor Vehicles Act-Held, legaf-Damages for seizure-Contributory
C negligence-Vicarious liability of State.
          The truck of the appelldllt was seized for non payment of the tax
    under Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court though found that the seizure
    was illegal due to incompetency of the officer to seize the vehicle, refused
    to grant the relier of damages on the ground that the appellant contributed
D   to the damages since there was neither a stay by any competent court to
    take delivery or possession or 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 regarding incompetence of the Officer to seize
    the truck while holding that the police officer was cc~.ipetent in law to take
E   possession of the vehicle for the purpose or enforcing the liability to pay
    tax under the Act. The court concurred with contdoutory negligence on the
    part of the appellant. This appeal by special leave uad been filed against
    the judgment and decree of the High Court.

          The question raised for determination was whether the State was
F vicariously liable for damages for seizure of the vehicle.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : The appellant had not discharged the liability to pay the tax,
    the obligation still subsisted. The seizure for enforcement of the tax
G   liability was, therefore, valid in law. The finding that the appellant had in
    fact contributed for the damages suffered by him due to laches on his part,
    namely neither he attempted to take possession and there was no stay on
    the delivery of the possession nor made use of the vehicle was also a finding
    of fact. Under these circumstances, the State was not vicariously liable to
H   pay the damages to the appellant. [617·F·G]
                                           616
                      M.SHIVMUR IBAPPA v. STATE                           617

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1680 of A
1979.

     From the.Judgment and Order dated 28.4.77 of the Bombay High
Court in A. No. 301 of 1969.

        V.N. Ganpule and Ms. J.S. Wad for the Appellants.                        B
        D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        ll is not in dispute that the truck of the appellant was seized for C
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 D
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 E
liability to pay tax under Motor Vehicles Act. It concurred with con-
tributory 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    F
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           G
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.

R.A.                                                       Appeal dismissed.