The State is not liable for the tort committed by its officers in the exercise of the powers to enforce the law in respect of the Motor Vehicle.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES - SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF LORRY - LEGALITY - LIABILITY OF STATE FOR TORT COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICER - IMMUNITY OF STATE FROM LIABILITY - SECTIONS 3, 22, 42, 129A OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTIONS 16 (1) (A), 15 (B) OF THE BOMBAY MOTOR VEHICLES TAX ACT, 1958 - SECTION 550 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898 - SECTION 161 OF THE BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit against the State of Maharashtra seeking damages for the seizure and detention of his lorry by the police. The plaintiff claimed that the seizure was illegal and mala fide and that he was entitled to damages for the loss of income and the value of the lorry. The State denied the allegations and contended that the seizure was legal and proper as the driver was absconding and the plaintiff had failed to produce the relevant documents.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the seizure of the lorry was not mala fide and malicious, but it was wrongful as the police officer did not have the authority to seize the lorry under section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court also held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as he had not paid the tax due in respect of the lorry and had not made an application to the police to return the lorry to him.
Issues: 1. Whether the seizure and detention of the lorry was legal and proper? 2. Whether the State was liable for the tort committed by the police officer? 3. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the seizure of the lorry was not mala fide and malicious, but it was wrongful as the police officer did not have the authority to seize the lorry under section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court also held that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as he had not paid the tax due in respect of the lorry and had not made an application to the police to return the lorry to him. 2. The court held that the State was not liable for the tort committed by the police officer as the officer was acting in the exercise of his powers to enforce the law in respect of the Motor Vehicle, which must be considered to be the power included in the powers of the State described as the "Sovereign powers".
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.

JUDGMENT

VAIDYA J.- The above First Appeal was filed by the original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by his heirs.

2. The plaintiff filed the Special Suit No. 39 of 1966, on August 29, 1966, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, against the Resp0ndentdefendant the State of Maharashtra, to recover Rs. 39,000 as the price of his motor-truck and Rs. 75,000 by way of damages for the loss of income to him, from the date of seizure and detention of the truck, by the police officers, from August 30, 1962, to the date of the suit, at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per year and further damages for the loss of income at the above rate until the date of realisation of the price of the truck and for costs of the suit from the defendant.

3. The allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, can be briefly stated as under: The plaintiff had been carrying on business as a public carrier for a long time; and in connection with his business, he had purchased a secondhand lorry at Hyderabad, bearing No. APT 1573, as registered with the Road Transport Officer, Hyderabad (AP) for Rs. 11,000. The plaintiff plied the lorry in the condition in which he purchased it for 3 to 4 years; and thereafter replaced the engine of the lorry with a brand new Tata Mercedes engine, purchased by him from the Tata Mercedes dealer at Secunderabad, M /s Rajeshwar for Rs. 12,000.

4. He also purchased a brand new chassis at Rs. 12,000 and thereafter he got the entire body of the lorry built and coloured, at the cost of Rs. 3,500 at the workshop of M/s Narsinha at Putali Bawadi, Hyderabad. He provided the lorry with several spare parts of the value of Rs. 6,000.

5. Thus, he spent about Rs. 22,700 and brought the lorry into new condition and maintained it so till it was seized by the Police Officers. He had even provided the lorry with six new tyres of the value of Rs. 3,500 and two new batteries of Rs. 500. In addition to that, he kept one tyre with the lorry, of the value of Rs. 500. The lorry, according to the plaintiff, was worth Rs. 39,500 at the time of the seizure.

6. At all relevant times the lorry bore No. BYU 281 with the Road Transport Officer, Aurangabad. It was used as a Public Carrier for carrying goods on freight for earning profits until June 30, 1962. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the taxes until that day and wanted to suspend the plying of the vehicle due to bad condition of the roads caused by heavy rains.

7. He, therefore, intimated to the Road Transport Officer, Aurangabad, by an application sent, under certificate of posting, dated June 30, 1962; and thereafter the plaintiff sent the vehicle on 3rd July 1962, to Degloor through a driver Habib Khan Rahman Khan, for depositing the same at the plaintiff's house, with one thousand bricks required for his own construction.

8. As soon as the lorry was left at the plaintiff's place at Degloor, the Degloor police came to the house of the plaintiff and caused it to be removed to the Degloor Police Station, saying that the Police Sub Inspector wanted the same for checking purposes. The lorry was thereafter detained and the driver was sent back.

9. On receipt of the information of the seizure and detention of his lorry the plaintiff went to the Degloor Police Station and made inquiry about it. He was told by the Police Sub Inspector Shimpi, that the lorry driver was not in possession of the licence and no tax was paid under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1962.

10. It is alleged that the plaintiff informed Police Sub Inspector Shimpi that under the law he could pay quarterly tax when he wanted to ply the vehicle; and in case he wanted to suspend plying, he could intimate the Road Transport Officer concerned, within a fortnight from the date of the expiry of the period for which the taxes were last paid; and so he had informed the Road Transport Officer, on June 30, 1962, that he was not going to ply; and showed the Police Sub-Inspector the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document