A bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 2,91,500 for loss of truck parked at the parking lot of the defendants and was stolen from there. The plaintiffs number two and the defendants three. First plaintiff carries on the business of general insurance and the truck bearing Engine No. 692d 22854785 and Chassis No. 3640 46844126 was insured with it by plaintiff No. 2 who was owner of the truck. It was Tata make truck of 1987 model. First defendant is constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and has various functions to perform under the Act. It was maintaining a truck parking centre at Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi, and the name given to the parking centre was Idle Truck Parking Centre. Second defendant is Union of India in the Ministry of Urban Development through its Secretary, and the third defendant is the Traffic Manager of the aforesaid truck parking centre. Second defendant has been impleaded on the ground that it owns, controls and looks after and is responsible for all the working and affairs of the first defendant. This does not appear to me to be correct as the first defendant under the aforesaid Act is a body corporate by the name. The delhi Development Authority (for short d. D. A ) having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. (Sec. 3 of the Act ). Second defendant, therefore, is neither a necessary nor a proper party in these proceedings. The suit against second defendant is to be dismissed. The defendants would, therefore, mean and include the first and the third defendants.

( 2 ) IN spite of various opportunities granted to the defendants they failed to file their written statemet and consequently their defence was struck off. Ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs was. recorded. They produced three witnesses. Public Witness -1 Ishwar Aswani has testified to the institution of the suit by a person duly authorised on behalf of the first plaintiff. Second witness is Satish Arora. He is the son of plaintiff No. 2 who is his mother. His father is Ami Chand. He has testified to the ownership of the truck, its insurance and parking and the truck having been stolen and the second plaintiff getting claim of Rs. 2. 91,500 from the first plaintiff, the insurer. Third witness is H. K. L. Saini who was at the relevant lime working as Branch Manager of the first plaintiff at Agra and has testified to the approval of claim or loss of the truck, serving of notices on the defendants in turn claiming Rs. 2,91,500 on the allegation that the loss of the truck was occasioned due to the negligence of the defendants.

( 3 ) THEN the defendants moved another application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was, again dismissed in default.

( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were, however, addressed by counsel for the parties on the basis of the record. Facts are, therefore, not in dispute.

( 5 ) THE truck Was brought to the Idle Truck Parking Centre on 8-6-1987 and parked there. Receipt (Ext. Public Witness 2]5) was issued by the defendants. It was issued in the name of Ami Chand. A sum of Rs. 3 was received by the defendants on account of truck parking fee for a period of 24 hours. On the night of 8th and 9th June, 1987 the truck was stolen from the parking site and a first information report was lodged with the police at 3. 30 A. M. on 9-6-1987. Report was lodged by Ram Singhar Yadav, driver of the truck. After investigation the police filed the case as untraced. Plaintiff No. 2 thereafter lodged a claim with the first plaintiff who was insurer of the truck, and after necessary formalities the first plaintiff agreed to the claim of the second plaintiff for loss of the truck in the sum of Rs. 2,91,500. After being subrogated to the rights of the second plaintiff for claiming compensation for loss of the truck, the present suit was filed. But before that the second p