STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. versus BINA CHOUDHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 22-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. 
..... 
v. 
:\... 
BINA CHOUDHARY AND ORS. 
MAY 22, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, /986-s.52A-Forest 
·_'ii._ 
offence-Vehicle carrying illegal timber seized-Compounding of offence-
c Vehicle directed to be released on deposit of Rs.10,000, being valuation of 
the vehicle and Rs.2,0001- as compensation-Deposit made-Meanwhile, 
gear box of the vehicle stolen from Forest Range Office, hence, vehicle could 
not be returned to the owner-Owner filed money suit claiming compensation 
for loss of income out of the vehicle-Trial Court decreed suit; owner directed 
to be paid Rs. 2.03 lakhs with interest for specified period and thereafter 
~ 
D Rs.2521- per day till the vehicle was returned-Order upheld by High Court-
On appeal, held: Trial Court made assessment of loss of income without any 
evidence-No document submitted to prove income out of the vehicle-
}· 
Judgment of Courts below therefore unsustainable-Considering the long 
passage of time and the limited nature of controversy, instead of remitting 
E back the matter to Trial Court for re-hearing, owner directed to be paid 
Rs.35,0001- in full and final settlement of the claim. 
A truck carrying illegal timber was seized by the Forest Range Staff. 
Show cause notice was issued to the owner of the truck for confiscation under 
s.52 (A) of the Indian Forest (Tripura Second Amendment) Act, 1986. The 
F 
owner pleaded guilty and prayed for compounding of the offence. In response, 
the Chief Conservator of Forest directed the case to be compounded on deposit 
ofRs.I0,000/- being valuation of the truck and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. 
-~ 
Deposit was accordingly made. Meanwhile, gear box of the truck was stolen 
from the office compound of the Forest Range Office. Because of the theft, 
the truck could not be returned to the owner, who filed money suit claiming 
G compensation for loss of income from the said truck. Trial Court decreed the 
suit for a sum of Rs. 2,03,364/- with 12% interest p.a. w~e.f. 18.10.1993 to 
31.12.1995 and thereafter Rs.252/- per day till the truck was returned. High 
Court upheld the judgment of Trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 
x 
H 
752 
; 
,,,,, 
I 
.. . , 
STATE OF TRJPURA v. BINA CHOUDHARY [PASA YAT, J.] 
753 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
·HELD: t. There was no specific issue framed regarding the income of 
the vehicle( truck). The trial court itself noticed that the plaintiff-owner had 
made an exorbitant claim and that his claim that the vehicle operated daily 
was absurd. All the estimates made by the trial court were without any 
evidence. No evidence was led on the questions of loss of income. Further, B 
the original claim was Rs.1,68,000/- which was subsequently amended to 
Rs.15,54,000/. No averments were made about the income or about the loss 
·in the plaint. The judgment and decree of the trial court and the impugned 
order of the High Court have no legal basis. The evidence of the plainti'rf 
No.I is on record. In fact PW-2, the son of PW-1 clearly stated that th~y c 
have not submitted any document to prove the income of the vehicle. 
[Para 191 (756-G; 757-A, BJ 
2. The, conclusions of the High Court are abrupt. The High Court 
appears to be unmindful of the fact that it was deciding an appeal in a money 
sujt~ (Para 181 (756-EI 
D 
3. In normal course, this Court would have set aside the impugned order 
and directed the Trial Court to re-hear and decide the matter afresh. 
Considering the long passage of time and the limited natnre of controversy, 
in full and final settlement of the claim, the plaintiff is directed to be paid 
I 
Rs.35,000/- by the defendant within two months. (Para 201 (757-8, CJ 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2362 of2005. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2002 of the High Court 
of Gauhati in First Appeal no. 113 of 1997. 
Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas and Anukul Raj for the Appellants. 
F 
Shibashish Misra, Ajay Yadav and K.V. Mohan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench .. The G 
High Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellants upholding the 
judgment and decree passed by the trial court. By the said judgment the' trial 
court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.2,03,364/- with 12% in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.