9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not transferring the vehicle in favour of plaintiff no. 1 - mere fact that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged that part of the decree by itself would not be sufficient to grant relief of compensation in favour of the plaintiffs solely on the ground that the relief of registration of vehicle in favour of the plaintiffs has been granted by the trial Court - as it rejected the prayer for compensation cannot be faulted - appeal stands dismissed - 95 of 2002, - - - Dated:- 23-9-2011 - A.P. Lavande, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.S. Lotlikar, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate and C.A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General, for the Respondent. [Judgment (Oral)]. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 26/1988/B insofar as it refuses the relief of compensation to the plaintiffs as against respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed against the defendants seeking the following reliefs : (1) For an order or mand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a partnership firm registered under No. 113/87 ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that it is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to have the registration of the suit vehicle done in favour of the plaintiff ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for a month along with 18% p.a. from 1-3-87 till the vehicle is registered in the name of plaintiff no. 1 ? (iv) What relief ? What order ? 9. In Special Civil Suit No. 26/1988/B, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff no. 2 as the only witness who produced some documents in support of the plaintiffs case and the plaintiffs closed the evidence. On behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2, one Manuel Afonso-DW1 was examined. 10. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and granted prayer no. 1. However, the relief of compensation was rejected. The trial Court held that the financier has lost its right under hypothecation after the vehicle was confiscated by defendant no. 4 and stood vested in the Central Government. The trial Court further held that no cogent evidence was led by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 pointed out that in the appeal, relief is only claimed against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, submitted that no relief can be granted against respondent nos. 3 and 4. 14. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 15. In view of rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in the appeal :- (i) Whether the trial Court erred in not awarding compensation in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and if yes, to what compensation, the plaintiffs are entitled ? 16. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the trial Court held that defendant nos. 1 and 2 were bound to register the vehicle in favour of plaintiff no. 1 although taxes in respect of the vehicle were not paid and although no objection certificate from the financier was not obtained. Insofar as the aspect of submission of NOC from the financier is concerned, provisions of Section 31A(1) to (4) of the Motor Vehicle s Act, 1939 ( The Act for short) are relevant. They read thus : 31A. Special provisions regarding motor vehicles subject to hire p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of Mr. Lotlikar that this finding has reached finality and as such, cannot be disturbed in appeal is concerned, I find no merit therein. Order XLI, Rule 22 of C.P.C. clearly provides that in an appeal preferred by the appellant, the respondent, without filing appeal may not only support the decree, but the respondent is entitled to urge that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. Merely because the trial Court has recorded such a finding in favour of the plaintiffs for the purpose of grant of first relief, this fact by itself would not deter this Court from disturbing the said finding, if the finding is contrary to law. This is subject to rider that the appellant in his appeal cannot be placed in a worse condition than what he is. In other words, even if the finding given while granting a relief in favour of the plaintiffs is wrong, in appeal preferred by the appellant against the decree partly refusing another relief the appellant cannot be put in worse condition. In the present case, the appellants/the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the refusal by the trial Court to grant relief of compensation and as such, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax to the Taxation Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1974 provides that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle. In the present case, pursuant to the auction held by the Customs Department, plaintiffs came in possession of the vehicle and as such, if they wanted to use the vehicle, they were bound to pay the taxes after having come in possession of the vehicle. 19. Section 15 of the Act of 1974 provides that notwithstanding the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, if the tax or any instalment thereof due in respect of a transport vehicle is not paid within the prescribed period, the validity of the permit for the vehicle shall become ineffective from the date of expiry of the said period until such time as the tax is actually paid. Therefore, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
