Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
R. P. Mookerjee, Renupada Mukherjee
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMI NARAYAN SINGH - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 80 Of 1950
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1955
CIVIL MOTOR TRANSPORT VEHICLES CONTROL ORDER, 1944 - INTERPRETATION - LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT FOR RESUMPTION OF MOTOR VEHICLE - COMPENSATION - SECTION 299, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, owner of a motor vehicle, was directed by the Provincial Transport Authority under the Civil Motor Transport Vehicles Control Order, 1944, to deliver the vehicle to a dealer, Leslie (Motors). The dealer was to hold the vehicle and await further directions from the Government. The Government assessed the value of the vehicle and directed the dealer to pay the plaintiff, but the dealer refused to pay. The plaintiff sued the Government and the dealer for the value of the vehicle and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government was liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Government. The court found that the order for delivery of the vehicle was an order made by the Government as the same was signed by the Secretary to the Government of Bengal who was also the Provincial Transport Commissioner. This was not a tortuous act of an officer, who is being made liable in his personal capacity for such act. The State is not being made liable for the act of an official who is alleged to have acted in a tortuous manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government was liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Government? 2. Whether the dealer was liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the vehicle?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government was liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the vehicle as assessed by the Government because: - The order for delivery of the vehicle was an order made by the Government as the same was signed by the Secretary to the Government of Bengal who was also the Provincial Transport Commissioner. - This was not a tortuous act of an officer, who is being made liable in his personal capacity for such act. - The State is not being made liable for the act of an official who is alleged to have acted in a tortuous manner. - The effect of the order for delivery as served on the plaintiff cannot but be interpreted as being deprivation of possession of the plaintiff, giving rise to a claim by the latter to compensation. 2. The dealer was not liable to pay the plaintiff the value of the vehicle because: - The dealer was not the owner of the vehicle. - The dealer was merely holding the vehicle and awaiting further directions from the Government.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs. The cross-objection was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff respondent brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises for recovery of Rs. 5,570/-, being the price of a motor vehicle which had belonged to his father and which had been delivered to defendant No. 2 Messrs. W. Leslie (Motors) under the directions of the Provincial Transport Authority purporting to be under the provisions of Civil Motor Transport Vehicles Control Order, 1944. There was a further claim for damages against the defendants.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff had impleaded the State (then the Province) of West Bengal as defendant No. 1 and Leslie (Motors) as defendant No. 2. Although notices of the filing of the suit were duty served on the province of West Bengal neither did the Province appear nor file any written statement in the trial Court. The defendant No. 2 filed a written statement admitting that the motor vehicle in question had been received in their workshop for submitting an estimate for repairs to the Government. No sanction of the estimate submitted was received and the Vehicle has been lying with them, at the risk and responsibility of the person entitled to the same, Leslie (Motors) denied all liability for the price of the Vehicle or for compensation.
( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the claim as against Defendant No. 2 and decreed the suit ex parte against the Province of West Bengal.
( 4 ) ALTHOUGH no steps had been taken on behalf of the Government in the trial Court the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that even on the materials in the record the State was not liable in any way. If there be any liability, that is of Defendant No. 2.
( 5 ) ALTERNATIVELY it is contended that if the Court is not in a position to decide the dispute on the materials in the record the case may be remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing on such terms and conditions as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
( 6 ) THE real dispute, therefore in this appeal is as between the appellant defendant No. 1 and Respondent Defendant No. 2.
( 7 ) THE principal question that falls to be decided depends on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Civil Motor Transport Vehicles Control Order, 1944. For a proper appreciation of the terms of the Control Order, reference will have to be made to the circumstances under which this Control Order was promulgated as well as to some of We relevant provisions,
( 8 ) DURING the last world war, various control orders were Issued under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 31 of the Defence of India Rules. On 12-1-1944, the Central Government promulgated the Civil Motor Transport Vehicles Control Order 1944 repealing the Lease/lend Vehicles Control Order 1943, subject to the continuing effect of orders passed under the latter Order. This Control Order of 1944 applied :"to all motor vehicles of the description given in the First Schedule to this Order which have been or may hereafter be released for civil use under orders of the Central Government including all vehicles to which the Lease/lend Vehicles Control Order 1943 applied immediately, before the commencement of the Order".
( 9 ) IT is the admitted case of the partial that the motor bus in dispute comes within the description given in the First Schedule.
( 10 ) THE Second Schedule of this Order given the list of dealers; one of those is Messrs. W. Leslie (Motors) Calcutta 30, Chittaranjan Avenue -Defendant No. 2 in these proceedings.
( 11 ) CLAUSE (5) of this order provided : "5. (1) Save as provided in Sub-clauses (2) and (3) no distributor, dealer or sub-dealer shall sell on otherwise dispose of or offer to sell or otherwise dispose of, any controlled motor vehicles. " (2) The Central Government may by special order require any distributor, dealer or sub-dealer to sell or otherwise dispose of any controlled motor vehicle In his possession in such manner as may be specified in the Order; and the distributor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
