Karnataka High Court
Mahindra Logistic Limited vs Smt. Preethi Lathia on 5 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
CRP No. 599 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 599 OF 2015 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHINDRA LOGISTIC LIMITED
1A/1B, 4TH FLOOR, TECHNIPLEX,
TECHNIPLEX COMPLEX,
VEER SAVARKAR FLYOVER,
GOREGAON (WEST) MUMBAI-400082.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PREETHI LATHIA
W/O. SRI. KRUPESH LATHIA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OFFICIAL ADDRESS AT: NO.G-32, BRIGADE
Digitally GARDENS, CHURCH STREET,
signed by BENGALURU-560 001,
KIRAN
KUMAR R REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER,
Location: SRI. KRUPESH LATHIA,
HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OFFICIAL ADDRESS AT: NO.G-32, BRIGADE
GARDENS, CHURCH STREET,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MR. ARUN MAGAJI
THE PROPRIETOR,
AK TRAVELS, NO.1,
1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS,
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
CRP No. 599 of 2015
3. THE H.R. DEPARTMENT
THOMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES,
THE PINNACLE,
NO.15, BAHAI BHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 AND R-3 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DATED:29.11.2019)
THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL
CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN S.C.NO.676/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The note made in the cause-title that the petitioner
ought to have been arrayed as 'Mahindra Logistics Limited'
and by mistake, it was wrongly arrayed as 'Mahindra and
Mahindra Limited, Transport Solution Group', is accepted.
2. Respondent No.1 herein instituted a suit for recovery
against one Arun Magaji--the proprietor of AK Travels; the
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
Managing Director of Mahindra Logistics Limited and the
H.R. Department of Thomson Financial Services.
3. It was her case that that her Tata Indica car bearing
Registration No.KA-01/B-993 was hired by Arun Magaji of
AK Travels, with an understanding that he would pay
Rs.5/- for every kilometer driven and this payment would
be made on monthly basis. The running of the car would
be recorded in a Daily Vehicle Track Sheet, on the basis of
which payments would be made every month.
4. She stated that Arun Magaji had in turn sub-hired
the vehicle to the Managing Director of Mahindra Logistics
Limited, and Mahindra Logistics Limited had in turn sub-
hired the vehicle to the H.R. Department of Thomson
Financial Services (defendant No.3) and the Daily Vehicle
Track Sheets of her car were maintained, and yet, she did
not receive any payments for the month of August, 2005
(for 525 km) and for the month of September, 2005 (for
4215 km), totally amounting Rs.28,155.98.
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
5. She contended that since the Vehicle Track Sheets
indicated that the vehicle was being used by defendant
Nos.2 and 3, they would ultimately be liable to pay said
amount, though all the defendants were jointly and
severally liable.
6. She also stated that despite several demands, none
of the defendants had cleared her claim, and hence, she
was constrained to file the suit.
7. Arun Magaji/defendant No.1 chose to remain absent
and was placed ex parte. The Managing Director of
Mahindra Logistics Limited and the H.R. Department of
Thomson Financial Services entered appearances.
8. The Managing Director of Thomson Financial Services
did not choose to contest the matter by filing the written
statement.
9. The Managing Director of Mahindra Logistics Limited
filed a written statement, in which it did not deny the
ownership of the plaintiff over the car and also the
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
agreement executed between her and Arun Magaji.
Defendant No.2 admitted that defendant No.1/Arun Magaji
had hired the vehicle to defendant No.2 and defendant
No.2 had in turn sub-hired the vehicle to defendant No.3.
It also admitted that it had been maintaining the Daily
Track Sheets with regard to the vehicle. It, however,
contended that it had made the entire payment for the use
of the car to Arun Magaji and they were therefore not
liable for payment of any sum.
10. The Trial Court, on examination of the entire material
produced before it, came to the conclusion that the usage
of the vehicle for the months claimed by the plaintiff was
not disputed. It came to the conclusion that since the
vehicle was used by defendant Nos.2 and 3, all the
defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay the suit
claim amount. Consequently, it came to the conclusion
that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.28,156/-
together with interest at 6% per annum from 01.10.2005
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
till the date of the decree and at 10% from the date of the
decree till its realization from defendant Nos.1 to 3.
11. The Trial Court made defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly
and severally liable for the suit claim amount. The Trial
Court also held that defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the
Managing Director of Mahindra Logistic Limited and the
H.R. Department of Thomson Financial Services, were in
turn entitled to recover the amount that they would have
to pay in compliance with the decree to the plaintiff from
Arun Magaji.
12. As against this decree, only the Managing Director of
Mahindra Logistics Limited is before this Court by way of
this revision.
13. In my view, since defendant No.2 i.e., Mahindra
Logistics Limited categorically admitted the ownership of
the plaintiff over the car and more importantly, admitted
that it had hired the vehicle from Arun Magaji and it, in
turn, sub-hired the vehicle to the H.R. Department of
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
Thompson Financial Services, the liability to pay for the
usage of the car would rest on them.
14. Even if defendant Nos.2 and 3 had paid these sums
to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 had undertaken
that no further subsequent sums were due from them, the
fact remains that the owner of the vehicle, who was
intended to recover the money for its usage, would still be
entitled to recover the same from the entities which used
her car.
15. In my view, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in
passing the impugned decree directing all the defendants
to be made liable for the said sum.
16. The fact that the Trial Court has empowered
defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the petitioner herein and the
H.R. Department of Thomson Financial Services, to
recover the money that they would have to pay in
compliance with the decree from Arun Magaji, indicates
that the impugned order is just and proper and does not
NC: 2024:KHC:14249
call for any interference in exercise of revisional power of
this Court.
17. I am thus of the view that there is no merit in the
revision and the revision is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
