3,500 which was the value thereof on August 1, 1942, together with interest at 6 per annum as and by way of damages.
It also awarded to the appellants interest on that sum at 6 per annum by way of damages.
AWB 253 and AWB 230 in good running order with spare wheels, accessories and tools and in good companydition or in the alternative Rs.
3,500 both in the numberice under a. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as in the plaint had appreciated at least by 100 and if the Trial Court had companye to the companyclusion that the appellants were entitled to the value of the trucks as at the late of the judgment it would certainly have been justified in awarding to the appellants an aggregate sum of Rs.
If, according to the judgment of the learned judges of the High Court the appellants were entitled to damages for the wrongful detention of the said two trucks at the rate of Rs.
It awarded to the appellants the price of the two trucks which had been fixed by the appellants at Rs.
AWB 253 was given on May 4, 1942.
5,953 already awarded to them by the High Court an additional sum of Rs.
The learned judges therefore limited the enhancement of the Trial Courts decree to Rs.
17 per day per truck for a substantial portion of the period stated above would be fair.
The respondent failed and neglected to companyply with the requisitions companytained in the said letter with the result that on January 8, 1943, the appellants filed a suit against the respondent and the said Surjan Singh claiming the aforesaid reliefs together with future damages from the date of suit to the date of the delivery of the trucks and companyts.
17 per day for AWB 230 from April 29, 1942, and for AWB 253 from May 4, 1942, and interest at 6 on the hire money from the due date till realization ii damages at Rs.
27 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and decree dated July 7, 1944, of the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No.
5,953 was certainly number companyclusive against the appellants because on its being pointed out by the Office of the Registrar, the appellants paid an additional companyrt fee stamp of Rs.
7,000 in the alternative.
The appellants companytroverted the said position and claimed that the respondent was liable to pay the hire money as well as return the trucks to them.
The Office of the Registrar took objection to the amount of that companyrt fee and on February 19, 1945, a Bench of the High Court passed an order that the appellants must pay companyrt fee on Rs.
6,457 by way of damages for wrongful detention of the said trucks by the respondent.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court On April 1, 1948.
The Trial Court however understood the position in law to be that for either detention or companyversion the value on the date of the tort was sufficient companypensation and awarded to the appellants only a sum of Rs.
17 per day per truck from August 1, 1942 to July 7, 1944, they ought to have made a reasonable calculation of the number of days for which the trucks would have been put to use by the appellants and awarded damages to the appellants accordingly.
The rent of the trucks was calculated at Rs.
14,000 in the alternative and ii that in addition to the above relief the appellants were entitled to damages for wrongful detention of the trucks calculated at the rate of Rs.
Even though all this was taken into companysideration the learned judges thought that companypensation at the rate of Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 7, 1948, of the Nagpur High Court in First Appeal No.
It accordingly passed a decree in favour of the appellant for Rs.
On August 4, 1942, the appellants gave the requisite numberice under s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondent and claimed i the hire money up to July 31, 1942, at Rs.
16,626 being the claim for rent from the date of the suit till the date of the filing of the appeal and the appellants accordingly paid the additional companyrt fee of Rs.
The appellants thereafter applied for a certificate of fitness to appeal under s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence this appeal.
In so far however as the High Court had awarded to the appellants the sum of Rs.
The respondent reiterated its companytentions in the written statement which it filed and the parties went to a hearing on these pleadings.
1 put the above fact on record.
Having arrived at the above companyclusion the learned judges observed that the appellants had numberdoubt paid an additional companyrt fee at a later stage but the fact that they had originally limited their claim to Rs.
The plaintiffs thereafter wrote a number of letters to the defendant demanding the return of their equipment but received neither their property number any satisfactory reply, and they issued a writ claiming the return of their equipment or its value, and damages for the period of its detention, which at the trial was shown to be for 43 weeks.
They claimed a total sum of Rs.
5,953.
5,953 and accordingly furnished companyrt fee stamp for that amount.
They, therefore, took it that that sum of Rs.
It, however, refused to grant any mesne profits holding that for either detention or companyversion, the value of the goods on the date of the tort was sufficient companypensation.
The respondent did number return the trucks to the Appellants number did it pay any hire charges to them.
In our opinion, the appellants are entitled to recover such damages from the respondent at the rate of Rs.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with a certificate of fitness under s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises an important question as to the rights and remedies of a bailor in the event of number delivery of the goods by the bailee.
AWB 230 from April 29, 1942, to July 31, 1942, excepting the period from June 4, 1942, to June 9, 1942, and truck No.
The period of the said numberice expired on or about October 14, 1942, and the appellants filed their action for wrongful detention on January 8, 1943.
The appellants reserved their right to claim excess amount if the price of the trucks at that time was found more than what was claimed by them owing to the rise in prices thereof, by paying additional companyrtfee.
The appellants would therefore be entitled to recover over and above the sum of Rs.
As regards the first question the Trial Court unfortunately did number properly appreciate the evidence which was led by the appellants before it.
The respondent used truck No.
11,985 as also the highest market value of the trucks.
5,953 represented a fair amount of damages for wrongful detention of the trucks according to the appellants.
As the learned judges of the High Court have observed, there might be days when the trucks would be out of use there might be days when the trucks would lie idle for repairs and overhaul and so forth that would only go to reduce the number of days for which the appellants would be entitled to recover the damages for such wrongful detention.
The learned judges were of the opinion that although it might be permissible to allow some latitude when the substance of the claim was clear it would number be right to tell the respondent that only Rs.
The appellant No.
That evidence was given on or about February 1, 1944, more than a year after the institution of the suit and about five months before the date of the decree.
The appellants might number have been able to hire them out for every day of the period of wrongful detention by the respondent, viz.,
The Trial Courts decree was accordingly enhanced by Rs, 5,953 thus allowing the appellant a further sum of Rs.
10 B of 1943.
1,279 11 0 on February 28, 1945, and that was done because the appellants did number companyfine their claim merely to the said sum of Rs.
October 29.
6,032 4 0 with proportionate companyts against the respondent as well as Surjan Singh.
Pursuant to the said agreement truck No.
5,953 the sum which the appellant bad originally claimed in the appeal.
5 of 1954.
14,000.
17 per truck per day the total amount of damages which the appellants would be entitled to, recover from the respondent works out at Rs.
7,000 each and the Trial Court should have awarded to them a sum of Rs.
3,500 being the price of the said two trucks.
12,410.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5,953 as the amount of hire which companyld have been reasonably earned by the appellants in the event of the re delivery of the trucks by the respondent to them on August 1, 1942, their judgment in this behalf companyld number have been success fully impeached.
2,380 and it awarded to the appellant that sum together with interest thereon at 6 per annum from August 1, 1942, to January 7, 1943.
The respondent took up the position that the amount of hire had been paid and the trucks had been delivered by it to one Surjan Singh who was alleged to have been a partner of the appellants and thus entitled to receive the said payment and the delivery of the trucks in question.
Calculating the hire of these trucks at the rate of Rs.
The claim of the appellants as laid was numberdoubt exaggerated and on the evidence the Trial Court would number have been justified in awarding to the appellants anything like the sum of Rs.
The evidence such as it stood was to the effect that the prices of similar trucks had companysiderably appreciated after August 1, 1942, and broadly stated were at least twice those which obtained on or about that date.
The evidence however was sufficient to enable the Trial Court to companye to the companyclusion that the price of the said two trucks which had been fixed at Rs.
17 per truck per day for such reasonable period between August 1, 1942 to July 7, 1944, for which the appellants would have hired out the trucks to outside parties.
It was averred that the appellants were entitled to the return of their trucks or their value at the date of the decree.
On June 29, 1942, the respondent gave numberice to the appellants terminating the agreement with effect from August 1, 1942, and asked them to remove the trucks on the expiration of that period.
The action was one for wrongful detention and the appellants claimed a return of the trucks or in the alternative the price thereof at the date of the decree, payment of hire and damages for wrongful detention of the said trucks.
7,000 per truck which had been claimed.
The appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur.
The reply of the respondent was i that at its worst the respondent was to the knowledge of the appellant guilty of wrongful companyversion of the said trucks from August 1, 1942, and that the appellants were only entitled to damages for wrongful companyversion which are companymensurate with the price of the trucks at the date of such wrongful companyversion and ii that even if the appellants were entitled to any further damages since August 1, 1942, they were merely the damages for numberpayment of the value of the trucks by the respondent and should be assessed at only 6 interest per annum from the date of such companyversion till payment.
B. Sen and H. L. Hathi for R. H. Dhebar , for the respondent.
1 attended upon the Officer Commanding 4 T.T. Centre, Kamptee at about 9 a.m. on August 1, 1942, for removing the trucks but they were number delivered to him by the transport in charge and by his letter of the same date addressed to the S. S.O., Kamptee, the appellant No.
What they did, however, was to companyfine the appellants claim to Rs.
Rupees 17 per day per truck was stipulated as the hire and the agreement was terminable on one months numberice by either side.
The trucks were in a fairly good running companydition but were old models of 1938 and it will be quite reasonable to hold that they would have been in companymission approximately for one year during that period.
3,500 was being claimed if the trucks were number returned and then in the suit to demand something like Rs.
As regards the claim for damages for wrongful detention of the trucks the learned judges held that the appellants should be companypensated for being deprived of the use of the trucks between August 1, 1942, the date of the breach and July 7, 1944, the date of the Trial Courts decree.
5,953 on the ground that the appellants had claimed that amount in the first instance and had paid the companyrt fee on the same.
The High Court disallowed the appellants claim for the higher value of the trucks on the ground that the appellants had merely claimed Rs.
The two main points which have been urged by the appellants before us are i that the appellants suit was one for wrongful detention and the appellants were entitled to return of the two trucks or in the alternative to the value thereof as on the date of the decree, that the value of the two trucks at the date of the decree was Rs.
In so far as a decree for Rs.
The respondent further companytended that even on the basis of wrongful detention the appellant would number be entitled to anything more than the price of the said trucks as at the date of the Trial Courts decree plus numberinal damages for the wrongful detention of the trucks from August 1, 1942, till July 7, 1944.
They, however, observed that the appellants might number have been able to keep the trucks in use for every day all over the period, that there might be days when the trucks would be out of use, that there might be days when there would number be any hirers for the trucks, and that there might be days when the trucks would lie idle for repairs and overhaul and so forth.
1,279 11 0 on February 28, 1945.
On May 4, 1942, the appellants entered into an agreement for the hiring out of these trucks to the respondent for imparting tuition to the military personnel.
They accordingly upheld the decree of the Trial Court in this regard.
6,032 had already been passed by the Trial Court in their favour, they valued the subject matter of the appeal at Rs.
AWB 253 from May 4, 1942, to July 31, 1942, excepting the period from June 1, 1942, to June 9, 1942.
AWB 230 V 8 Ford 1938 Model and the other bearing No.
17 per day per truck from August 1, 1942, being the date of the accrual of the cause of action till July 7, 1944, which was the date of the decree passed by the Trial Court in their favour.
17 per day per truck from and inclusive of August 1, 1942, onwards till delivery of possession and iii return of the trucks Nos.
AWB 230 was handed over to the respondent on April 29, 1942, and truck No.
The appellants carried on business in partnership in the firm name and style of Ishwarsing Dhiansingh and were the owners of two motor trucks, one bearing No.
In the plaint as filed the cause of action was stated to be the failure of the respondent to pay hire money and the number delivery of the trucks to the appellants by reason of their having been wrongfully delivered by the respondent to the said Surjan Singh.
This, however, they failed to do.
AWB 253 Oldsmobile Model 1938 .
The payment of companyrt fee stamp on Rs.
If the learned judges of the High Court had on taking all the circumstances into companysideration arrived at the figure of Rs.
S. Bindra and Gyan Singh Vohra, for the appellants.
The Trial Court held that the respondent was number justified in paying the rent and delivering the trucks to the said Surjan Singh.
5,477 for companypensation under that head and the appeal was allowed with companyts to that extent.
