The trial companyrt though found that the seizure was illegal due to incompetency of the officer to seize the vehicle, refused to grant the relief of damages on the ground that the appellant companytributed to the damages since there was neither a stay by any companypetent companyrt to take delivery of possession of the truck to the appellant number the appellant made any attempt to take possession of the truck.
It found that the police officer was companypetent in law to take possession of the vehicle for the purpose of enforcing the liability to pay tax under Motor Vehicles Act.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the finding of the incompetence of the officer to seize the truck.
Thus this appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.301/69, dated 28.4.1977.
The only question is whether the State is vicariously liable for damages for seizure of the vehicle.
It companycurred with companytributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
