Case: Lotus Line (P) Ltd Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

therein the principle which the High Court has deduced from the case of Wednesbury Corporation, (1907) 1 KB 78. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is also unable to point out any passage in the judgment of Cozens-Hardy L. J. which lays down the proposition in the form in which the High Court has stated it. As we read that case it lays down that the rights of a corporation in such a case are at least as high as that of a private owner, with this addition that a trustee or corporation cannot renounce those rights in the same way as a private owner could.The true measure of compensation was held in that case to be the cost of restoration and compensation must give full restoration.In that case the dispute really was whether the road which has subsided should be raised to the same level as it was before or whether the purpose would be served even though it was not raised to the same level and a dip was allowed therein. The Appeal Court held that the Corporation was entitled to full compensation for restoring the road to its original condition. It may be mentioned that this view was not accepted in full by the House of Lords.It seems to us, however, that the view taken in Wednesbury Corporations case, (1907) 1 KB 78, that a person whom a wrong is done is entitled to full compensation for restoring the thing damaged to its original condition may be accepted as the true measure of damages in a case of this kind. This applies equally to a private person as to a corporation or trustee. Therefore, the respondent-State was entitled to compensation to the extent necessary to restore the jetty to its original condition. If this is to be called restitution, the corporation as well as a private person would be entitled to it. But if by restitution, the High Court meant complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done, then neither a private person nor a corporation or a trustee is entitled to complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done. 5. This being the principle, the respondent-State would be entitled to such cost as would restore the jetty to its original condition. It is in that connection that an estimate was submitted for special repairs to the jetty as early as May 12, 1948. The appellant was invited to send a representative to assess the cost of repairing the damage done but it neglected to do so. There is nothing on the record to show that the special repairs to the tune of Rs. 16,400 were for complete reconstruction of the jetty irrespective of the damage done to it. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of Patel who prepared the estimate and of the Sub-Divisional Officer who supervised it to show that the estimate of as. 16,400 was for complete reconstruction of the jetty irrespective of the damage done. The covering letter to the estimate shows that it was an estimate for special repairs to the jetty. If the appellant neglected to send a representative to be present to assess the damage and the cost of repairing it, it cannot now come forward and say that the amount of Rs. 16,400 would not be the proper sum required for restoring the jetty to its original condition. All that has been brought out in the evidence of the two witnesses referred to above is that it could not be said whether any part of the dismantled material was fit for re-use; nor were the witnesses able to say what the dismantled material would have fetched it sold. Barring these two matters all that the evidence shows is that the amount of as. 16,400 was needed to carry out the special repairs, which would have presumably restored the jetty to its original condition. Therefore, the respondent-State would be entitled to this sum of Rs. 16,400. But in view of the fact that some of the material might have been fit for re-use and some of the material might have been resold and thus fetched some price, we would deduct the item of Rs. 1,600 (from the total of Rs. 16,400) which refers to dismantling the damaged portion and removing the debris outside including sorting materials and stacking the useful one to a suitable site etc.". The rest of the estimate amounting to Rs. 14,800 is clearly for restoration of the jetty to its original condition and the respondent-State would be entitled to that amount. 6. We may add, however, that there is no reason to allow anything to the respondent State in the shape of emergent repairs. It has been shown that Rs. 14,800 would have restored the jetty to its original condition and that is all that the State is entitled to have. How it decided to spend that sum, whether at one time or at different times in the shape of emergent repairs or minor repairs has no bearing on the quanturn of compensation necessary for restoring the jetty to its original condition. For the same reason the fact that the State might not have spent the whole amount by the time the trial Court came to give its judgment or the fact that a bridge was going up and the jetty might not thereafter be required has no relevance on the question of damage done on April 27, 1948 though the former may affect the date from which interest may be awarded. We are, therefore, of opinion that the respondent-State is entitled to Rs. 14,800 as compensation for the damage done to the jetty to put it back in its original condition. We, therefore partly allow the appeal and reduce the amount decreed to Rs. 14,800. This sum will carry interest at the date of Rs. 6 per centum from the date of decree of the trial Court till realisation as ordered by the High Court. The appellant will pay proportionate costs throughout to the respondent-State. 7.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It seems to us, however, that the view taken in Wednesbury Corporations case, (1907) 1 KB 78, that a person whom a wrong is done is entitled to full compensation for restoring the thing damaged to its original condition may be accepted as the true measure of damages in a case of this kind. This applies equally to a private person as to a corporation or trustee. Therefore, thee was entitled to compensation to the extent necessary to restore the jetty to its original condition. If this is to be called restitution, the corporation as well as a private person would be entitled to it. But if by restitution, the High Court meant complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done, then neither a private person nor a corporation or a trustee is entitled to complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done5. This being the principle, the respondent-State would be entitled to such cost as would restore the jetty to its original condition. It is in that connection that an estimate was submitted for special repairs to the jetty as early as May 12, 1948. The appellant was invited to send a representative to assess the cost of repairing the damage done but it neglected to do so. There is nothing on the record to show that the special repairs to the tune of Rs. 16,400 were for complete reconstruction of the jetty irrespective of the damage done to it. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of Patel who prepared the estimate and of the Sub-Divisional Officer who supervised it to show that the estimate of as. 16,400 was for complete reconstruction of the jetty irrespective of the damage done. The covering letter to the estimate shows that it was an estimate for special repairs to the jetty. If the appellant neglected to send a representative to be present to assess the damage and the cost of repairing it, it cannot now come forward and say that the amount of Rs. 16,400 would not be the proper sum required for restoring the jetty to its original condition. All that has been brought out in the evidence of the two witnesses referred to above is that it could not be said whether any part of the dismantled material was fit for re-use; nor were the witnesses able to say what the dismantled material would have fetched it sold. Barring these two matters all that the evidence shows is that the amount of as. 16,400 was needed to carry out the special repairs, which would have presumably restored the jetty to its original condition. Therefore, the respondent-State would be entitled to this sum of Rs. 16,400. But in view of the fact that some of the material might have been fit for re-use and some of the material might have been resold and thus fetched some price, we would deduct the item of Rs. 1,600 (from the total of Rs. 16,400) which refers to dismantling the damaged portion and removing the debris outside including sorting materials and stacking the useful one to a suitable site etc.". The rest of the estimate amounting to Rs. 14,800 is clearly for restoration of the jetty to its original condition and the respondent-State would be entitled to that amount6. We may add, however, that there is no reason to allow anything to the respondent State in the shape of emergent repairs. It has been shown that Rs. 14,800 would have restored the jetty to its original condition and that is all that the State is entitled to have. How it decided to spend that sum, whether at one time or at different times in the shape of emergent repairs or minor repairs has no bearing on the quanturn of compensation necessary for restoring the jetty to its original condition. For the same reason the fact that the State might not have spent the whole amount by the time the trial Court came to give its judgment or the fact that a bridge was going up and the jetty might not thereafter be required has no relevance on the question of damage done on April 27, 1948 though the former may affect the date from which interest may be awarded. We are, therefore, of opinion that the respondent-State is entitled to Rs. 14,800 as compensation for the damage done to the jetty to put it back in its original condition.