SAVANI TRANSPORT CO Vs. SOU ANGOORI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of two Small Cause suits for recovery of bire charges for the lorry belonging to the plaintiff-respondent and taken on hire by the petitioner-defendant. The defendant while admitting that the lorry was taken on hire by it, contended that the person who let it on bire was not the plaintiff but Chandra Transport Co., which had engaged the lorry on contract basis. There is thus no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover any amount. The defendant also denied that the lorry belonged to the plaintiff. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle and that the defendant failed to establish that there was no privity of contract between it and the plaintiff. The learned Additional Chief Judge also held that as admittedly the defedent had engaged the lorry of the plaintiff, it is liable to pay the transport charges. He also allowed interest on the amount for the belated payment of hire charges.

(2.) In these two revision petitions, Mr. Balchand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this finding of the lower court is erroneous and is not supported by evidence. That this particular lorry was engaged by the defendant to transport goods was admitted. The only question is whether there was any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to have the vehicle for the transport of his goods and the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff the hire charges. The goods receipt, dated 30-10-1973 issued by the unloading clerk at Bombay, marked Ex. A-1, is in the name of the plaintiff and was issued to the driver of the lorry. Hire charges were admi'tedly not paid. A notice was issued on Behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant for payment of the hire charges, the office copy of which is Ex, A-42. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the notice as evidenced from Ex. A-2. But strangely enough the defendant did not choose to send any reply. If the defence set up by it is correct, the defendant would have immediately sent a reply to that effect. The present plea in defence is evidently the result of an after-thought. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that on requisition by the defendant-company, this lorry was sent to the defendant-company for transporting their goods. Even D.W.1, admitted that in another suit, the plaintiff was described as the owner of the lorry. D.W.1 himself stated that the plaintiff was the owner of the lorry. In this state of evidence, I do not see how the finding of the lower Court that the plaintiff was the owner of the lorry could be interfered with.

(3.) In regard to the other question also, the documents do not show anywhere that Chandra Transport Co , had entered into a contract to give the lorry in question on hire to the defendant-company. Ex. B-1 which is the crossing invoice, dated 27-10-1973 does not show that there was any contract between the defendant-company and the Chandra Transport Co., with respect to this lorry. As rightly observed by the Additional Chief Judge, none representing (he Chandra Transport Co., had signed on it. On the contrary, P.W.1 stated that his driver Shaik Davood had signed it. In the absence of any proof that there was any contract or agreement between Chandra Transport Co , and the defendant-company and in view of the contents of Ex. B-l and the other evidence, in my view, the learned Additional Chief Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to hire charges for the lorry in question. This finding also does not call for any interference.