LexLOTUS LINE (P) LTD. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A LOTUS LINE (P) LTD. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA January 7, 1965 699' B [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, s. M. SIKRI, JJ.] Damages-Measure of-whether party complaining of wrong to pro- perty entitled to restitution-<Jr to restoration of property damaged to original condition. A vessel owned by the appellant, caused damage to a jetty. The res- pondent state prepared an estimate of Rs. 16,400 as the cost of special C repain for the damage done. Sometime thereafter, emergent repairr costing Rs. 2783/ - were undertaken by the respondent state to make the jetty workable and later some minor repairs costing about Rs. 1223/- were further carried out. The appellant having refused to pay for tho damage done, the respondent state filed a suit claiming all the three above mentioned amounts and interest thereon. The trial court found that the damage done was attributable to tho D negligence of the appellant, but as regards the quantum of damages. it came to !be conclusion that the claim for Rs. 16,400/- was really for reconstruction of the whole damaged area, so that the respondent state was in fact seeking restitution and not compensation for !be damage d~ne. The trial court refused to give such restitution and held that the expendi- ture in respect of emergent and minor repairs had put the jetty in working order and therefore gave a decree of Rs. 3671/ 12/ 6 which was th<> E r G H amount actually spent by the state in making these repairs. In appeal, the High Court was of the view that the Wednesbury Cor- poration's Case, [1907] 1 K.B. 78, laid down the general rule in such cases, which was, to require the party in the wrong to make compensation and not restitution; but that this rule was subject to the exception that wher<> the party complaining of a wrong to property was a corporation or a trust<>e charged with the maintenance of a highway or other public work, the wrong-doer was bound to make restitution. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal modified the decree of tho trial court by awardLg a aum of Rs. 19,038/ 8/ - plus interest. HELD : The Wednesbury Corporation's case did not lay down the proposition in the form •lated by the High Court. The true measur< of compensation was held in that case to be the cost of restoration. Th<> p<>rsan to whom a wrong was done was entitled to full compensation for restoring the thing damaged to its original condition, but this did not mean complete reconstruction irrespective of the damage done. (702 l:l-D, B-F, G] The evidence in this case showed that the amount of Rs. 16,400/- was needed to carry out necessary repairs to restore the jetty to i!' original condition and not that the amount was for complete reconstruction of the jetty i~pective of the damage done to it. As this amount would ha e restored the jetty to its original condition, there was no reason to al'ow anything to the respondent state on accunt of emergent repairs or for any other expenditure. (703 B-D, G] CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 810 of 1962. 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1965] 2 S.C.R. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 1, 1959, A of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 697 of 1955. Purushottam Tricumdas, I. B. Dadachan;i, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. T. V. R. Tatachari, and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B Wanchoo, J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the Bombay High Court arises out of a suit brought by the State of Bombay (respondent) against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 24,979 /2/ 4. The facts which led to the filing of the suit C are not now in dispute as they have been concurrently found by the two courts below and may be briefly narrated. On April 27, 1948, at about midday, the vessel Padam belonging to the appellant arrived in the Dharamtar creek carrying a cargo of 3500 bags of manure )Veighing about 250 tons and laid anchor along- D side Dharamtar jetty lying on the Pen side of the creek on the Pen-Khopoli road. The Dharamtar jetty is meant for small vessels bringillg passengers and luggage crossing the creek and so the peon on duty there requested the master of the ship to remove the vessel into the creek and to unload the cargo with the help of small boats. The master of the ship agreed to do so. But E when he tried to move the vessel away from the jetty, she actually came on top
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.