IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3383 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23rd August, 2011 Chadha Papers Limited and another … Appellants Versus Darpan Sekhri and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Chadha Papers Limited and Guru Teg Bahadur Sugars Limited, defendants No.2 and 3 to the suit respectively, have preferred the present regular second appeal. They are aggrieved against the judgment dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.68,000/- as damages. The lower appellate Court had directed that payment be made to the owner of the vehicle within two months from the date of the judgment and thereafter, the plaintiff i.e. appellant in the lower appellate Court, will be entitled to interest @ 6 percent per annum till the payment is made. By awarding the damages the lower appellate Court had decided issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) are the legal representatives of Ravi Pal Sekhri-plaintiff to the suit. The trial Court had decreed the suit partly and had held the plaintiff entitled to get back the vehicle in possession of the defendants. Regular Second Appeal No.3383 of 2011 (O&M) The defendants were directed to hand over the physical possession of the vehicle to the plaintiff. This finding of the trial Court was not assailed by the defendants, therefore, the grievance of the appellants-defendants in the present appeal is only qua the award of damages by the lower appellate Court. It will be necessary to notice few admitted facts of the case. M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the industrial concern’) had obtained certain credit facilities/loans from Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PSIDC’). On failure of the industrial concern to discharge its liability, PSIDC invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and took over the physical possession of assets of the industrial concern on 17th July, 1996. After the taking over, the concern along with its assets was purchased in an open auction, after an advertisement was issued, by Chadha Papers Limited-appellant No.1- defendant No.2 to the suit. All assets of the industrial concern along with all such property, which was pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or was assigned to defendant No.1-PSIDC, was taken over by defendant No.1. While taking over the assets of the industrial concern, possession of one truck parked in the premises of the Sugar Mill was also taken over by PSIDC and later-on by the present appellants-defendants. The detail and description of the vehicle so possessed by the defendants to the suit is as follows: S. No. Type of vehicle & Regn. No. Make & Model Engine & Chassis No. 1. Truck PUQ- 3598 Tata 1973 692 DOI 37 16083 344 002371588 2 Regular Second Appeal No.3383 of 2011 (O&M) Plaintiff to the suit was the legal representative of Purshotam Lal Maini. It was claimed by the predecessor in interest, i.e. Ravi Pal Sekhri that the vehicle so seized and possessed was his personal property and it could not be possessed and seized by the defendants, as such a seizer was unlawful. Defendant No.1, in the written statement raised a plea that the plaintiff is not owner of the vehicle and disputed the ownership of the said vehicle. He stated that it belongs to M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited. Defendants No.2 and 3 raised the plea of bonafide purchaser. They further stated that the plaintiff never brought to their notice that he is owner of the vehicle in dispute. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court framed ten issues. The core issue, being issue No.1, for adjudication of this appeal can be noticed as under: “1. Whether the seizer of Truck No.PUQ-3598 by the defendant No.1 is unlawful? OPP” Parties to the suit led their evidence. The trial Court after considering the evidence threadbare, returned following findings: “13. … … … Now in the present case, it is to be considered whether the vehicle in question was asset of M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited and whether such property was pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the defendant No.1 Corporation. At the time of taking over the possession of M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited, Inventory was prepared and the Copy of same is proved as Ex.D1. Perusal of document Ex.D1 shows that the first part is regarding inventory of fixed assets i.e. plant and machinery of M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited. Thereafter, the parts stating regarding vehicle in the premises of Northland Sugar Complex Limited and third 3 Regular Second Appeal No.3383 of 2011 (O&M) part is the inventory certificate regarding the stock of sugar lying in the godown and pledged with different banks. Perusal of this document shows that the vehicle in dispute was neither pledged, mortgaged nor assigned with the defendant No.1. Perusal of registration certificate Ex.P1 shows that the plaintiff is owner of the vehicle and there is no entry regarding any hypothecation or hire-purchase of the vehicle. DW2 Om Parkash Saluja, Secretary of PSIDC in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that which ever movable or immovable property is hypothecated or pledged with PSIDC, PSIDC got their charge/lien entered with the respective office. He has further stated that which ever company is advanced loan by PSIDC, the respective lien is with the registrar of the company. He has further admitted that after Sr.No.34 the list of the vehicle is showing the vehicles which were parked in the premises of M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited. He has further admitted that Ex.P1 does not bear any lien of PSIDC. He has further admitted that as per Section 29, the fixed assets are to be taken over by PSIDC and they have auctioned to take over the management as well as assets. He has further admitted that under Section 29 of the Act, the liability is to be realized from the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. He has further admitted that the vehicle in question is not the asset of M/s Northland Sugar Complex Limited. He has further admitted that at the time of taking over, no particular notice was issued to the plaintiff regarding the take over of the tractor in question.” However, issue No.4 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages, was decided against the plaintiff by the trial Court and he was held not entitled to any damages. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court awarded the damages in favour of the 4 Regular Second Appeal No.3383 of 2011 (O&M) respondent-plaintiff with effect from 17th July, 1996 till the date of filing of the suit, i.e. for a period of 34 months on the ground that this vehicle was used by the defendants. In the present appeal, award of damages as stated earlier, has been assailed on the following grounds: (i) That defendants No.2 and 3 were bonafide purchasers and the vehicle was possessed by defendant No.1. (ii) That the guess work employed by the lower appellate Court to award damages has no rationale. Having heard counsel for the appellants, this Court is of the opinion that it has been proved by positive evidence that the vehicle remained with the defendants and the plaintiff has been deprived of its usage, therefore, he is entitled to damages. Furthermore, the amount assessed by the lower appellate Court cannot be held to be excessive. Award of Rs.2,000/- per month as damages for the truck is justifiable. Thus, no interference in the present appeal is warranted, especially when no question of law much less a substantial one, has been raised during the course of arguments for consideration of this Court. Dismissed in limine. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 23, 2011 rps 5