Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the award of loss of income as it was based on conjecture without evidence and directed a payment of Rs.35,000 as full and final settlement.

Summary

A truck carrying illegal timber was seized under s.52A of the Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, 1986. The owner pleaded guilty and the offence was compounded on payment of Rs.10,000 as valuation and Rs.2,000 as compensation. The vehicle’s gear box was stolen from the forest range office, preventing its return, and the owner filed a money suit claiming compensation for loss of income. The trial court awarded Rs.2,03,364 with interest and a daily amount of Rs.252, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of loss of income was made without any evidence, there was no specific issue framed, and the award was unsustainable; instead of remanding, it ordered a full and final settlement of Rs.35,000 to be paid to the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a court can assess loss of income and award compensation without any evidence of actual earnings.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the trial court's award based on conjecture.
Whether the suit should be remanded for fresh assessment or settled on a modest amount.

Subjects

illegal timbervehicle seizurecompounding of offenceloss of incomeassessment without evidencemoney suitcompensationIndian Forest ActSupreme Court

Judgment

.....
A STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.
v. :\...
BINA CHOUDHARY AND ORS.

MAY 22, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, /986-s.52A-Forest ·_'ii._
offence-Vehicle carrying illegal timber seized-Compounding of offence-
c Vehicle directed to be released on deposit of Rs.10,000, being valuation of
the vehicle and Rs.2,0001- as compensation-Deposit made-Meanwhile,
gear box of the vehicle stolen from Forest Range Office, hence, vehicle could
not be returned to the owner-Owner filed money suit claiming compensation
for loss of income out ofthe vehicle-Trial Court decreed suit; owner directed
to be paid Rs. 2.03 lakhs with interest for specified period and thereafter ~

D Rs.2521- per day till the vehicle was returned-Order upheld by High Court-
On appeal, held: Trial Court made assessment of loss of income without any
evidence-No document submitted to prove income out of the vehicle- }·
Judgment of Courts below therefore unsustainable-Considering the long
passage of time and the limited nature of controversy, instead of remitting
back the matter to Trial Court for re-hearing, owner directed to be paid
E Rs.35,0001- in full and final settlement of the claim.

A truck carrying illegal timber was seized by the Forest Range Staff.
Show cause notice was issued to the owner of the truck for confiscation under
s.52 (A) of the Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, 1986. The
F owner pleaded guilty and prayed for compounding of the offence. In response,
the Chief Conservator of Forest directed the case to be compounded on deposit
ofRs.I0,000/- being valuation of the truck and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. -~

Deposit was accordingly made. Meanwhile, gear box of the truck was stolen
from the office compound of the Forest Range Office. Because of the theft,
the truck could not be returned to the owner, who filed money suit claiming
G compensation for loss of income from the said truck. Trial Court decreed the
suit for a sum of Rs. 2,03,364/- with 12% interest p.a. w~e.f. 18.10.1993 to
31.12.1995 and thereafter Rs.252/- per day till the truck was returned. High
Court upheld the judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present appeal.
x
H 752
; STATE OF TRJPURA v. BINA CHOUDHARY [PASA YAT, J.] 753
,,,,, Allowing the appeal, the Court A
·HELD: t. There was no specific issue framed regarding the income of
the vehicle(truck). The trial court itself noticed that the plaintiff-owner had
made an exorbitant claim and that his claim that the vehicle operated daily
was absurd. All the estimates made by the trial court were without any
evidence. No evidence was led on the questions of loss of income. Further, B
the original claim was Rs.1,68,000/- which was subsequently amended to
I Rs.15,54,000/. No averments were made about the income or about the loss
·in the plaint. The judgment and decree of the trial court and the impugned
order of the High Court have no legal basis. The evidence of the plainti'rf
No.I is on record. In fact PW-2, the son of PW-1 clearly stated that th~y
have not submitted any document to prove the income of the vehicle.
c
[Para 191 (756-G; 757-A, BJ

2. The, conclusions of the High Court are abrupt. The High Court
appears to be unmindful of the fact that it was deciding an appeal in a money
sujt~ (Para 181 (756-EI
D
.., 3. In normal course, this Court would have set aside the impugned order
and directed the Trial Court to re-hear and decide the matter afresh.
Considering the long passage of time and the limited natnre of controversy,
in full and final settlement of the claim, the plaintiff is directed to be paid
I
Rs.35,000/- by the defendant within two months. (Para 201 (757-8, CJ
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2362 of2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2002 of the High Court
of Gauhati in First Appeal no. 113 of 1997.

Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas and Anukul Raj for the Appellants. F
Shibashish Misra, Ajay Yadav and K.V. Mohan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench .. The G
High Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellants upholding the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court. By the said judgment the' trial
court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,03,364/- with 12% interest per annum
I
with effect from 18. l0.1993 to 31.12.1995 and thereafter Rs.252/- per day till the
vehicle was returned.
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 2. Background facts are very interesting and essentially as follows:

3. A vehicle bearing registration No. TRL 2443 carrying illegal timber
was seized by the Champaknagar Range Staff. An offence report No. 3/CB-
93 dated I 1.06.1993 was drawn by the Forest Beat Office, Champabari Beat
Office of Champaknagar Forest Range againstthe owner of said vehicle for
B illegally carrying, illicitly collected 57 nos. of unmarked gamer sawn timber.
The driver of the said vehicle could not produce the registration papers of
the vehicle as required under the Forest Rules for carrying forest produce and
also failed to produce any documents like G.P. and Transit Pass of Forest
Department. The driver of the vehicle Kartik Chandra Ghosh was arrested and
C the vehicle was seized and subsequently brought to Champaknagar range
under 1 eliamura Police Station and kept in the custody of the in- Charge,
Divisional Forest Protection Party, Taliamura.

a
4. On 21.6.1993 show cause notice was issued to the owner of the
vehicle as to why the said vehicle shall not be confiscated under Section
D 52(A) of the Indian .forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, 1986 (in short
the 'Tripura Act').

5. On 26.6.1993 the owner of the truck pleaded guilty and prayed for
compounding of the offence in response to the show cause notice.

E 6. On 13.8.1993 the Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura, directed the
case to be compounded on realization of Rs.25,000/- being valuation of the
truck and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

7. On 27 .9.1993 the vehicle was directed to be released on receipt of the
payment. On that date owner of the vehicle had prayed for re-assessment
F and reduction in the value of the vehicle as the vehicle was old. In
consideration ofthe submission made, theChiefConservatorofForest, Tripura
by its order dated 27.9.1993 revising his previous order and re-assessing the
valuation of the truck to be Rs.10,000/- and the compensation to be
Rs.2,000/- fixed the amounts accordingly. It was directed that a written
G undertaking was to be given by the owner of the truck that he shall ensure
that in future the vehicle would not be used for commission of any forest
offence. Time for making payment was granted till 30. I 0.1993. In the night
of 12/13.10.1993 the gear box of the vehicle Jas stolen by some unknown
miscreants from the office compound of the Range Office.
STATE OFTRIPURA v. BINA CHOUDHARY [PASA VAT, J.) 755
8. On 18.10.1993 the deposit was made in respect of the value and the A
·compensation.

9. On 14.10.1993 a First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') was
1
lodged to record the theft of the gear box of the vehicle. The matter was also
taken up with the forest officer for apprehending of the culprits and recovery
of the gear box. Because of the aforesaid circumstances, the vehicle could B
not be returned. Owner of the vehicle- Sudhir Bhusan Choudhary issued a
legal notice on 12.1.1994. Subsequently a Money Suit was filed in May, 1994
(MS/27of1994) in the Court of Assistant District Judge No. I, West Tripura,
Agartala praying for a compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- alongwith interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from I 0.1.1994 till payment. In the written statement C
the demand was disputed and it was submitted that the claim is without any
basis.

IO. On 22.7.1996 the trial court decreed the suit for a sum of
Rs.2,03,364/- for the period from 18. I 0.1993 to 3 I .12.1995 and thereafter at the
rate of Rs.252/- per day. The defendants were also directed to return the D
. vehicle to the plaintiff within two months from the date of delivery of the
judgment.

I I . An appeal was preferred before the High Court. During the pendency
of the appeal, the vehicle was handed over after repairilg the vehicle and
making it in runnin~_condition. E1
l2. As noted above the High Court dismissed the appeal. During the
pendency of the appeal the original owner Sudhir Bhusan Choudhary expired
and his legal heirs were brought on record.

13. The stand of the appellants is that the plaintiff himself while seeking F
•• release of the vehicle indicated that the value of the vehicle was very less
and was even less than Rs.25,000/- as was originally fixed. Considering the
age of the vehicle the valuation was quoted Rs. I 0,000/-. It is inconceivable
that such a vehicle would fetch income of Rs.600/- per day as was originally
claimed. Claim was for Rs.15,54,000/-. No evidence of any income was G
· adduced except an assertion that the owner was earning Rs.2,000/- per day.
The trial court found that no evidence was led, yet held that the income would
be roughly Rs.600/- per day. The trial court itself noticed that the plaintiff
had claimed an exorbitant amount for compensation as well as for interest.
The vehicle was of the year, I 979. The trial court itself noticed that it was
inconceivable that vehicle of the. value of Rs. I 0,000/- would fetch H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Rs.7,200/- per month as claimed by the appellant.

14. Thereafter on entirely conjectures and surmises the High Court held·
income of a new truck would be Rs.2,000/- per day and if the vehicle was to
be sold by making a deduction of Rs. I00/- per month, the vehicle was earning
around Rs.600/- per day.
B
15. Trial court then proceeded to examine the expenditure on hypothesis
and without any evidence being led. It was clearly stated by the trial court
that no evidence was led by the plaintiff to substantiate the claim of loss of
income. The High Court did not examine any of these relevant factors and
C abruptl)' i::ame to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to assess the
actual value or earning of an old vehicle. It clearly overlooked the fact that
there was no evidence led by the plaintiff to substantiate the claim of income.
It was not for the trial court to go on a proving enquiry and fix figures that
too without any basis.

D 16. In essence, it was submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial
court as upheld by the High Court cannot be sustained.

17. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
though it is a fact that no concrete evidence was led yet, the High Court acted
in a judicious and equitable manner to fix the income.
E
18. The conclusions of the High Court are abrupt. The High Court
appears to be unmindful of the fact that it was deciding an appeal in a money
suit. Only conclusion worth noticing reads as follows:

"We find no illegality committed by the learned trial court in
F making the assessment of loss of income at Rs.252/- per day. It is
correct that in such a nature of case, the accurate assessment to
ascertain the actual net income of an old vehicle li_ke one in hand
would be very much difficult. The learned trial court applied a rough
assessment on approximate calculation and as such we are of the
considered opinion that it is not a fit case to interfere in this appeal."
G
19. There was no specific issue framed regarding the income of the
vehicle. The trial court itself noticed that the plaintiff had made an exorbitant
claim and that the claim of the plaintiff, that the vehicle operated daily was
an absurd claim. All the estimates made by the trial court were without any
H evidence. No evidence was led on the questions of loss of income. It is
STATE OF TRIPURA v. BINA CHOUDHARY [PASA YAT. J.] 757
further relevant to note that the original claim was Rs.1,68,000/- which was A
· subsequently amended to Rs.15,54,000/-. No averments were made about the
income or about the loss in the plaint. The judgment and decree of the trial
court and the impugned order of the High Court have no legal basis. The
evidence of the plaintiff No. I is on record. In fact PW-2, the son of PW-I
clearly stated that they have not submitted any document to prove the B
income of the vehicle.

20. In normal course, we would have set aside the impugned order and
directed the trial court to re-hear and decide the matter afresh. Considering
the long passage of time and the limited nature of controversy, we direct that
in full and final settlement of the claim, the plaintiff shall be paid C
Rs.35,000/- by the defendant within two months from today. Ordered
accordingly.

21. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any orders as to
costs.
D
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.