Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages. The plaintiff owned a motor lorry which was being used for unloading ballast in the Kharia aerodrome. On 21-7-1942, a lorry driven by Maqbul Hasan defendant 2 (respondent 3 in the present appeal) while engaged in the business of transporting ballast from a certain village to the Kheria aerodrome struck the plaintiff's lorry and damaged it. The plaintiff had to incur expenses in repairing the lorry and the lorry remained out of use for a period of about one month. The plaintiff's case was that the lorry was owned by the defendant-appellant firm which was arrayed as defendant 1 in the suit and that defendant 2, Maqbul Hasan was its servant working under its directions at the time of the incident. He alleged further that defendant 2 was driving the motor lorry rashly and negligently and it was on account of such rash and negligent driving of defendant 2 that the plaintiff's lorry was damaged. He, therefore, sued both these defendants to recover damages to the extent of Rs. 1500.
(2.) Defendant 1 pleaded that it was merely a hirer of the lorry and had no control on the action of defendant 2 and that certain other persons who were subsequently impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 were the owners and defendant 2 was their servant and under their control. He, therefore, denied all liability with regard to the damage caused. He also demurred to the amount of the damages claimed and specially to the amount claimed on account of loss sustained by the lorry remaining idle and the amount claimed on account of depreciation. It was also contended that there was no negligence on the part of defendant 2.
(3.) The Courts below found that the accident was due to the negligence of defendant 2, the driver. They further found that the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 1300 composed of the following items: Rs. 465 spent on replacing damaged parts. Rs. 30 spent on wages of a mechanic. Rs. 250 on account of loss on account of the lorry remaining idle for a month. Rs. 555 on account of depreciation caused to the lorry They further held that defendants 1 and 2 were both liable. The suit was, therefore, decreed for recovery of Rs. 1300 against defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed against defendants 3 and 4.;