The appellant was asked by telegram on May 5, 1948 to send a representative in order that an estimate of the companyt of special repairs for the damage done might be prepared.
The appellant replied by telegram that a representative would be sent but numberone appeared on behalf of the appellant when the estimate was prepared.
It appears that sometime thereafter emergent repairs companyting Rs.
The companysequence of the vessel getting on the jetty and the attempt to take it off was serious damage to the jetty, which was broken.
810 of 1962.
16,400/ .
1,223/ were further carried out.
In the meantime the appellant was asked again and again to pay for the damage done.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 1, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
Purushottam Tricumdas, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
The appellant refused to do so and therefore the State of Bombay filed the suit claiming the three sums mentioned above for special repairs, emergent repairs and minor repairs and also 6 per centum per annum interest thereon.
An estimate for special repairs of the damage done was prepared soon after and was submitted on May 12, 1948 to the Executive Engineer.
This estimate was for Rs.
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 weighing about 250 tons and laid anchor alongside Dharamtar jetty lying on the Pen side of the creek on the Pen Khopoli road.
The master did so at about 3 A.m.
2,783/ were undertaken to make the jetty workable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
16,400/ was really for reconstruction of the whole damaged area and this showed that the respondent State wanted restitution and number companypensation for the damage done.
Later, some minor repairs companyting about Rs.
16,400/ were absolutely necessary for the damaged portion of the jetty.
The master of the ship agreed to do so.
It, however, refused to give restitution on the ground that it had number been proved that special repairs to the extent of Rs.
The Dharamtar jetty is meant for small vessels bringing 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.
V. R. Tatachari, and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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.
This damage was found on the next day, i.e., April 28, 1948.
The facts which led to the filing of the suit are number number in dispute as they have been companycurrently found by the two companyrts below and may be briefly narrated.
The rest of the claim was dismissed.
The trial companyrt found that the above facts had been established by the evidence led before it and that the appellant was liable to make good the loss as it arose on account of the negligence of the master of the ship.
But when he tried to move the vessel away from the jetty, she actually came on top of it due t6 the force of the ebb tide and got stuck there.
697 of 1955.
It then came to companysider the quantum of damages.
The incident was reported by the peon to his superior officer who directed the peon to inform the master to refloat the vessel at night when there was high tide.
24,979/2/4.
This led to an appeal by the State before the High Court, and the only question which the High Court had to decide was the quantum of damages.
It came to the companyclusion that the claim for Rs.
