TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court grants additional damages for truck value appreciation, interest, and wrongful detention</h1> <h3>DHIAN SINGH SOBHA SINGH & ANOTHER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA</h3> DHIAN SINGH SOBHA SINGH & ANOTHER Versus THE UNION OF INDIA - 1958 AIR 274, 1958 SCR 781 Issues Involved:1. Rights and remedies of a bailor in the event of non-delivery of goods by the bailee.2. Entitlement to the value of goods as on the date of the decree versus the date of the tort.3. Entitlement to damages for wrongful detention of goods and the calculation of such damages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rights and Remedies of a Bailor in the Event of Non-Delivery of Goods by the Bailee:The appellants, who owned two motor trucks, entered into an agreement with the respondent for hiring out these trucks. The respondent failed to return the trucks after the termination of the agreement and claimed to have delivered them to a third party, Surjan Singh. The appellants contended that the respondent was liable to pay hire charges and return the trucks. The Trial Court held that the respondent was not justified in delivering the trucks to Surjan Singh and awarded the appellants the price of the trucks and interest but refused to grant mesne profits. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision but limited the compensation for wrongful detention based on the initial claim by the appellants.2. Entitlement to the Value of Goods as on the Date of the Decree Versus the Date of the Tort:The appellants argued that they were entitled to the value of the trucks as on the date of the decree, which was Rs. 7,000 each, rather than the value at the date of the tort. The respondent contended that the appellants were only entitled to the value as at the date of the tort, which was Rs. 3,500 each. The Supreme Court held that in actions for wrongful detention, the value of the goods should be assessed as at the date of the verdict or judgment, not at the date of the tort. The Court found that the appellants were entitled to recover Rs. 7,000 for the trucks as their value had appreciated by 100% by the date of the judgment.3. Entitlement to Damages for Wrongful Detention of Goods and the Calculation of Such Damages:The appellants claimed damages for wrongful detention of the trucks at the rate of Rs. 17 per day per truck from August 1, 1942, to July 7, 1944. The High Court limited the damages to Rs. 5,953 based on the initial claim and court fee paid by the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to damages for wrongful detention at the rate of Rs. 17 per day per truck for a reasonable period, considering the trucks' usability. The Court calculated the damages for one year, amounting to Rs. 12,410, and awarded the appellants an additional sum of Rs. 6,457 over and above the amount already awarded by the High Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellants an additional decree for Rs. 3,500 as the appreciated value of the trucks, interest at 6% per annum from July 7, 1944, and Rs. 6,457 as additional damages for wrongful detention. The total decretal amount would carry further interest at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment until payment.
TaxTMI 