Case: Dhian Singh Sobha Singh &amp; Another Vs. The Union Of India

1. 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 non-delivery of the goods by the bailee2. 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. AWB 230 (V-8 Ford 1938 Model) and the other earring No. AWB 253 (Oldsmobile Model 1938). 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. Rs. 17 per day per truck was stipulate as the hire and the agreement was terminable on one months notice by either side3. Pursuant to the said agreement truck No. AWB 230 was handed over to the respondent on April 29, 1942, and truck No. AWB 253 was given on May 4, 1942. The respondent used truck No. AWB 230 from April 29, 1942, to July 31, 1942, excepting the period from June 4, 1942, to June 9, 1942, and truck No. AWB 253 from May 4 1942, to July 31, 1942, accepting the period from June 1, 1942, to June 9, 1944. The respondent did not return the trucks to the appellants nor did it pay any hire charges to them. 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. The appellants controverted the said position and claimed that the respondent was liable to pay the hire money as well as return the trucks to them5. On August 4, 1942, the appellants gave the requisite notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondent and claimed (i) the hire money up to July 31, 1942, at R. 17 per day for AWB 230 from April 29, 1942, and for AWB 253 from May 4, 1942, and interest at 6 per cent on the hire money from the due date till realization (ii) damages at Rs. 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 253 and AWB 230 in good running order with spare wheels, accessories and tools and in goods condition or in the alternative Rs. 3,500 being the price of the said two trucks6. The respondent failed and neglected to comply with the requisitions contained 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 costs7. In the plaint as filed the cause of action was stated to be the failure of the respondent to pay hire money and the non-delivery of the trucks to the appellants by reason of their having been wrongfully delivered by the respondent to the said Surjan Singh. It was averred that the appellants were entitled to the return of their trucks or their value at the date of the decree. 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 court fee. 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. The respondent reiterated its contentions in the written statement which it filed and the parties went to a hearing on these pleadings8. The Trial Court held that the respondent was not justified in paying the rent and delivering the trucks to the said Surjan Singh. It awarded to the appellants the price of the two trucks which had been fixed by the appellants at Rs. 3,500 both in the notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the evidence led on their behalf. It also awarded to the appellants interest on that sum at 6 per cent. per annum by way of damages. It, however, refused to grant any mesne profits holding that for either detention or conversion, the value of the goods on the date of the tort was sufficient compensation. The rent of the trucks was calculated at Rs. 2,380 and it awarded to the appellant that sum together with interest thereon at 6 per cent, per annum from August 1, 1942 to January 7, 1943. It accordingly passed a decree in favour of the appellant for Rs. 6,032-4-0 with proportionate costs against the respondent as well as Surjan Singh9. The appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 11,985 as also the highest market value of the trucks. In so far as a decree for Rx. 6,032 had already been passed by the Trial Court in their favour, they valued the subject-matter of the appeal at Rs. 5,953 and accordingly furnished court-fee stamp for that amount2. The appellants thereafter applied for a certificate of fitness to appeal under S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
24.It is clear therefore that a bailor in the event of the non-delivery of the goods by the bailee on a demand made by him in that behalf is entitled at his election to sue the bailee either for wrongful conversion of the goods or the wrongful detention thereof and if the bailor pursues his remedy against the bailee for wrongful detention of the goods it would be no answer for the bailee to say that he was guilty of wrongful conversion of the goods at an earlier date which fact of conversion of the goods the plaintiff knew or ought to have known at or about that time and is therefore not liable to the plaintiff for wrongful detention thereof. It is the option of the plaintiff to pursue either remedy against the bailee just as it suits him having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the bailee cannot be heard to say anything to the contrary for the simple reason that he cannot take advantage of his won wrong and cannot ask the plaintiff to chose a remedy with may be less beneficial to him26. In the present case, however, we are not fettered by any such consideration. The respondent was the bailee of the two trucks and was bound to return the same to the appellants on the termination of the bailment. The bailment came to an end on August 1, 1942, and the appellants attended the office of the Officer Commanding 4 M. T. T. Centre, Kamptee on the said date for having the trucks re-delivered to them. When the said trucks were not so delivered the appellants immediately on August 14, 1948, gave the statutory notice to the res under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The period of the said notice expired on or about October 14, 1942, and the appellants filed their action for wrongful detention on January 8, 1943. There was no delay on the part of the appellants which would spell out any intention on their part to take advantage of the rising market or to waive their remedy in wrongful conversion with a view to take advantage of the statute of litigation. There is no evidence to show that the market value of the trucks had appreciated perceptibly between August 1, 1942, and January 8, 1943, and it is significant to note that the only claim which the appellants had made in their notice dated August 4, 1942, was for specific delivery of the said trucks by the respondent. Even though the appellants knew that the said trucks had been re-delivered by the respondent to Surjan Singh and they could have, if they had been so minded, sued the respondent for wrongful conversion of the said trucks, they elected to have the said trucks re-delivered to them and asked for the specific delivery thereof and filed their action for wrongful detention of the said trucks. They were, in our opinion, perfectly entitled to do so and we have to consider the further questions that arise before us on the basis that the action for wrongful detention had been rightly instituted by the appellants against the respondentIn our judgment an assessment of the value of the goods detained (and not subsequently returned) at the date of the accrual of the cause of action (i.e., of the refusal of the plaintiffs demand) must presuppose that on that date the plaintiff abandoned his property in the goods: and such a premise is inconsistent with the pursuit by the plaintiff of his action of detinue. The significance of the date of the refusal of the plaintiffs demand is that the defendants failure to return the goods after that date becomes and continues to be, wrongful. Moreover, the plaintiff may recover damages in respect of the wrongful detention after that date, e.g., where the plaintiff has suffered loss from a fall in value of the goods between the date of the defendants refusal and the date of actual return, (See Willan v, Archer, (1847) 5 CB 318 (S) and such damages must equally continue to run until the return of the goods or (in default of return) until payment of their value. There is (as appears from the forms of judgment mentioned) a clear distinction between the value of the goods claimed in default of their return and damages for their detention, whether returned or not. The date of the refusal of the plaintiffs demand is the date from which the latter commence to run, but appears to be irrelevant to the former and cannot convert a claim for the return of the goods into a claim for payment of their value on that date52.It is, therefore, clear that in actions for wrongful detention the plaintiff is entitled on default of the defendant in re-delivering the goods to him, to payment in the alternative of the value of the goods thus wrongfully detained as at the date of the verdict or judgment, in other words, at the date of the decree. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the appellants were entitled to recover from the respondent the value of the said trucks which, as has been already stated, was Rs. 7,000 in the alternative on default committed by the respondent in redelivery of the same to the appellants58. We are of opinion that the High Court was clearly in error in adopting this basis for the award of damages. The payment of court fee stamp of Rs.5,953 was certainly not conclusive against the appellants because on its being pointed out by the Office of the Registrar, the appellants paid an additional court-fee stamp of Rs. 1,279-11-0 on February 28, 1945, and that was done because the appellants did not confine their claim merely to the said sum of Rs. 5,9559. In our opinion, the appellants are entitled to recover such damages from the respondent at the rate of 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.The trucks were in a fairly good running conditions but were old models of 1938 and it will be quite reasonable to hold that they would have been in commission approximately for one year during that period. Calculating the hire of these trucks at the rate of Rs. 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. 12,410. The appellants would therefore be entitled to recover over and above the sum of Rs. 5,953 already awarded to them by the High Court an additional sum of Rs. 6,457 by way of damages for wrongful detention of the said trucks by the respondent