Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Neeraj Sharma - Appellant.
Versus
Brij Mohan Gautam - Respondent
RSA No. 503 of 2004
Decided on : 4.3.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Monika Shukla, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the obligations regarding possession and renewal of route permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and how the failure to comply with these obligations can lead to claims for damages.
Headnote:
Route Permit - Recovery of Damages - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 66(1), Section 66(2), Section 66(3), Section 66(4), Section 66(5)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 66, which deals with the necessity of a route permit for plying a bus on a particular route. The court interpreted the obligations of the parties in relation to the possession and renewal of the route permit, and how the failure to comply with these obligations led to the claim for damages. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the evidence in light of the legal provisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages against the defendant, alleging that the defendant forcibly stopped the plaintiff's bus and retained the route permit, leading to financial losses for the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had indeed retained the route permit, leading to the bus being stranded and the plaintiff suffering financial losses. The court also found that the first appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence available on record.
Issues: The main issue was whether the findings of the District Judge were supported by the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence in light of the legal provisions, particularly the obligations regarding possession and renewal of the route permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the same.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 1.9.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 79-G/XIII/03.
2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed a suit for recovery of damages against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the plaintiff, he was owner of the bus No. HP-36-1941, registered with the registering Authority Dehra. The defendant Neeraj Sharma had forcibly and with malafide intention stopped the bus of the plaintiff from plying on its route on March 10, 1997 at about 5:45 PM when the bus reached at village Kaloha. The defendant asked the plaintiff to show the route permit of the bus. The plaintiff produced the route permit and the defendant snatched the same from him and ran away with the intention to get financial benefit because he was also owner of another vehicle having the same route. The plaintiff asked the defendant to return the document but in vain. On 12.3.1997, the plaintiff reported the matter to the police. The defendant admitted his fault on March 21, 1997 and undertook to compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff made request to the RTA Dharamshala for the renewal of the route permit who refused to do so and demanded the original route permit which was in possession of the defendant. The plaintiff served a legal notice on March 13, 1997 for the damages and loss sustained by him to the tune of Rs. 1650/- per day. The defendant replied the notice and admitted that he had been in possession of the route permit. The bus could not be plied between March 11, 1997 to March 25, 1997. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiff claimed the damages.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to him, the plaintiff was plying his bus on the route allotted to the defendant. The defendant asked the plaintiff to show his route permit. Thereafter, the plaintiff handed over the route permit to the defendant. The defendant warned the plaintiff not to ply the bus on the route other than the allotted route. The defendant asked the plaintiff to give photocopy of the same. The plaintiff handed over the original by saying that the defendant could get the photocopy of the same. The defendant obtained the photocopy of the original permit on March 11, 1997 and got the same attested from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehra. When the defendant went to return the permit to the plaintiff, the latter refused to receive the same. He has never admitted his fault or agreed to give compensation to the plaintiff.
4. The replication was filed. The learned Sub Judge (I), Dehra, H.P., framed the issues on 20.2.2001 and suit was dismissed on 8.5.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. The learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, allowed the same on 1.9.2004. Hence, this regular second appeal.
5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 23.11.2004:
“1. Whether the findings of the District Judge are dehors the evidence on record?”
6. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant, on the basis of substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that the first appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court dated 1.9.2004.
7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully.
8 PW-1 Brij Mohan Gautam deposed that the defendant demanded the route permit of the bus of the plaintiff on March 10, 1997 at Kaloha. The route permit was shown to the defendant but he snatched it and retained the same. The route
