Coming across a classic instance ‘where exercise of statutory right would further worsen the condition of the right holder’, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted relief to a petitioner. The court was hearing the petition filed by the manager of a cold storage facility in Tiruchi, seeking a direction to Tiruchi police to pay rent arrears.
In 2018, the police seized dates that were being sold under a fake brand name. The Judicial Magistrate directed the police to keep the seized dates in a cold storage facility till the disposal of the case.
But even after three years, the dates remained in the cold storage unit.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed, “What should have been a routine business engagement turned out to be a fatal ‘date’ with the dates. A full three year lapsed. The petitioner has kept the goods ever since. Unfortunately the case went into ‘cold storage’.”
Even the best of facilities could not halt decay of the stored materials beyond a point. A foul odour was emanating from the goods. No amount was paid and the bill kept mounting. The local police could not be expected to cough up the amount as they had acted only on court orders. The complainant also could not be asked to bear the charges.
Though as per Section 170 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, the petitioner as bailee had the right of lien over the bailed goods till the charges were paid, he was in a position of being unable to exercise the right, the court said.
The court observed that Section 459 of the Cr.PC authorised the magistrate to direct sale of seized properties that are subject to speedy and natural decay. The fake labels and wrappers were sufficient to establish the case against the accused. Directing the police to keep the goods in safe custody till the disposal of the case was erroneous, the judge said.
Stating that the bill had mounted to ₹3.54 lakh, the judge observed that the petitioner was not entitled to full payment. This was because as per Explanation to Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, in estimating the loss or damage arising from a breach of contract, the means which existed of remedying the inconvenience caused by non- performance of the contract must be taken into account. This was known as the rule of mitigation. The petitioner had the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss. could have moved the jurisdictional magistrate or the High Court at the earliest.
Therefore, the petitioner should be paid only ₹1 lakh. The cost of removal of the decayed goods and subsequent sanitation of the cold storage facility was fixed at ₹25,000. The Tiruchi Superintendent of Police should coordinate with the petitioner and ensure that the stored goods were removed within a few days. The petitioner should be paid ₹1.25 lakh from the victim compensation fund by the jurisdictional magistrate court within four weeks, the judge said.
