Seizure of lorry before expiry of the time given in the notice demanding tax.

The question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether it is lawful for a Sub-Inspector of Police to seize and detain a motor vehicle in pursuance of the direction from the Regional Transport Officer for non-payment of tax levied under Madras Act (XVI of 1952), and if such act is not lawful whether he can invoke the benefit of section 17 (2) of the said Act in an action against him for damages instituted by the owner of the vehicle.

S.A. Peer Mohamed was the owner of a motor lorry, MDU 2382 with a public carrier permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In exercise of the powers under Madras Act (XVI of 1952), the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai, assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 30 for the month of October, 1954, in respect of his lorry. The notice, Exhibit B-4, dated 2nd June, 1955 which was despatched on 10th June, 1955 demanding that the tax levied should be paid within 15 days after the receipt of the said notice, was actually received by him on 15th June, 1955 He had time to pay the tax demanded till 30th June, 1955. The Regional Transport Officer forwarded a copy of this demand notice, Exhibit B-7, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham, and intimated that the vehicle may be seized for non-payment of the tax under section 11 of the Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police then stationed at Natham was one Perumal Chettiar. On 21st June, 1955 Perumal Chettiar, the Sub-Inspector, stopped the lorry on the road leading from Madura to Dindigul and had it detained in the compound of the Police-Station premises at Natham. At the time of seizure the lorry was driven by one Karuppiah, an employee of Peer Mohamed. The Sub-Inspector sent a report, Exhibit B-8 to the Regional Transport Officer on 23rd June, 1955 at about 8-20 p.m. As a certificate of payment of the tax by Peer Mohamed on 23rd June, 1955 was produced before the Sub-Inspector, he released the lorry and obtained an acknowledgment to that effect, Exhibit B-6 from P.W. 1 the agent of Peer Mohamed.

Peer Mohamed filed the suit O.S. No. 334 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Melur, against Perumal Chettiar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, for recovery of Rs. 1,000 of which the sum of Rs. 500 was claimed as compensation for loss of income incurred by the illegal detention of the lorry and the sum of Rs. 500 for loss of reputation on account of the illegal and malicious seizure and detention of the lorry. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he acted bona fide in the discharge of his official duties and that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar enacted under section 17 (2) of Madras Act (XVI of 1952).

The learned District Munsif of Melur who tried the suit found that the defendant acted in good faith in the discharge of his duties, and that section 17 (2) of the Act operated as a bar. He accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 29 of 1957 on the file of the District Court of Madurai against the said judgment and decree. The learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the defendant acted in good faith but was of opinion that the seizure amounted to an act of trespass on the part of the defendant in respect of which section 17 (2) of the Act did not afford any defence. He found that the plaintiff failed to prove any special damage by reason of the seizure and detention and therefore awarded the plaintiff a nominal damage of Re. 1. He directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff his proportionate costs of Rs. 500 in the trial Court and to pay the plaintiff the vakil’s fee on the amount appealed against in the appeal before him.

The defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal challenging the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate Court and the plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross-objections claiming enhanced damages. The Second Appeal was heard by one of us sitting singly in the first instance, and was referred to a