Bengaluru Civil Court Directs Police To Compensate Advocate Whose Two-Wheeler Was Illegally Towed Away

A civil court in Bengaluru has directed Assistant Sub-Inspector (Traffic), Upparpet Traffic Police Station, to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 2000, to an advocate for unlawfully towing away his bike which was not parked in a no parking area.

Additional City Civil and Session Judge Jyothsna D, passed the order and directed the police to return the towing charges of Rs 1650 received from the plaintiff as well.

Plaintiff submitted that on 18.03.2020, at about 04.30 pm, he visited Avenue Road, to purchase textbooks. After searching for parking space, he parked his bike near the parking sign board, ensuring that no obstruction or no disturbance was caused to anyone within the available space.

Plaintiff argued that after having purchased books, when he returned to the place where he had parked his bike, the bike was missing and after anxiously making inquiries with the nearby shopkeeper, he rushed to Upparpet Traffic Police Station only to find his bike seized near the Station. After waiting for an hour, defendant No.1 and his towing agents finally arrived.

When explanations were sought, it was alleged by the traffic police that the plaintiff had parked in a 'No-Parking Area'.

Plaintiff submitted that he requested for proof of the same and a video was shown in which the plaintiff noticed that his bike was not parked in any 'No Parking Area' as alleged by defendant No.1.

It was claimed that towing agents who were towing bikes under the instructions of defendant No.1, can be seen discussing in the video in Kannada that they require just two vehicles.

Plaintiff argued that this clearly indicated the fact that the plaintiff's bike was towed for the sole purpose of extracting money and for the sake of meeting a pre-determined/daily target set by defendant No.1. It was submitted that defendant No.1 seized the plaintiff's bike without following the procedure as mandated by law by forthwith reporting the seizure and he also did not produce the seized bike before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Further, it was submitted that defendant No.1 with a mala fide intention, without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, forcefully compounded the alleged offence of no parking by generating the receipt for Rs1,650, for towing charges for the sake of extracting money from the plaintiff and to meet a pre-determined/daily target set by the defendant No.1.

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the unlawful actions of the defendant No.1, on 19.03.2020 filed a complaint via email along with all the relevant photos and video to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), West Division, Bengaluru, to which, he received a reply via email on 14.04.2020.

In the said reply, the plaintiff alleged that it was admitted that defendant No.1 towed and seized the plaintiff's bike and it was also that there was a parking sign board at the spot where the plaintiff's bike was parked. However, it was submitted the said reply failed to address the plaintiff's grievance in a lawful manner and falsely justified the unlawful actions of defendant No.1 by stating reasons that were contrary to law.

Following this the plaintiff issued a legal notice which was not replied to by the authorities.

In response to the suit summons the defendants filed their statement of objections stating that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Further, it was submitted that “No sanction was obtained from the government to file the suit against the police department. Narrating the incident as it happened on that day, it was claimed all procedures were undertaken as per the police's rules. 

Moreover, it was argued that approximately 1 year and 3 months after the said incident, the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendant No.1 alleging that this vehicle was damaged at the time of toeing and had claimed Rs.2,000 towards damages which had to be paid within 60 days of the receipt of the notice. In the above circumstances of the case, the defendants prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

The court on going through the records noted the learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined PW1 but had not led the evidence on the defendants' side of the case.

It observed that it was not enough to disprove the plaintiff's case, since the defendants had not taken any pain to defend their case by leading their evidence though they had stated in their written statement that the amount of penalty collected had been remitted to the Treasury, no such documents were produced by the defendants.

Rejecting the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had not obtained prior sanction from the Government to file this case as defendants are officials from the police department, the Court said under 170(2) Karnataka State Police Act a person intending to file a civil suit against a public servant must give 1 months' notice in advance to the Government, but the plaintif in this case had issued legal notice two months before filing the present suit.

This is clearly in compliance with section 170(2) of the Police Act. The Plaintiff has also complied with Section 170(3) by stating at Para No. 13 of the Plaint that he issued notice prior filing the suit and the same was duly served on 24.06.2021 and both the Defendants did not reply, the Court observed. 

It then opined “Since the law mandates issuance of prior statutory notice, it equally casts a duty on the Government to reply and decide whether to grant sanction or not when a statutory notice is issued by a person intending to file a civil suit against a public servant. By reading section 170(2) of the Police Act and Section 80 of CPC together, it is clear that the Government is duty bound as per law to give a reply within a maximum time frame of 60 days.”

Reference was also made to the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 and it was said that failure to reply to a statutory notice is a breach of law on the part of the Government.

"It is the Government which has clearly violated the law. When such is the case, the Government or the Defendant No.1 now cannot take advantage of violation of the law on their part,” the Court held.

Accepting the contention of the plaintiff on the principle of waiver by relying on the Apex court judgement in the case of Jasmant Singh Mathurasinga and Ors. Vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors (1991) wherein the court has interpreted the principle of waiver, it said that if at all the Government wanted to deny sanction, it must have done so by replying to the notice issued by the Plaintiff, and not by ignoring it. 

Accordingly, the bench concluded that there was no counter to the plaintiff's case and that he had made enough submissions to prove his allegations against the state, while the defendants had failed to prove that his plea was not maintainable. 

Thus, the plea was allowed.

Case Title: ABC AND Mariswamy, The Assistant Sub-Inspector (Traffic), Upparpet Traffic Police Station.

Case No: OS No.4727/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment