Owner of the lorry liable for damages.

This is a Revision preferred by the 3rd defendant against the decree passed against him in S.C.S. No. 668 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Pudukottai, filed by the 1st respondent for damages caused to the 1st respondent’s Plymouth Car by a lorry belonging the to 1st and 3rd defendants.

The short facts in this case are the following: Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers; They own a motor lorry bearing No. MDY 2477. The lorry is registered in the name of the 3rd defendant. On 10th February, 1959, the 1st respondent had parked his Plymouth Car MDC 7783 at Kulipirai to the south of P.R.R.M.SP. Chettiar’s house on the left side margin of the Kulipirai-Ponnamarvathy Road. The car was parked in such a way as not to be a hindrance to the traffic and there was plenty of space on the right side of the car for the lorry to pass. The 2nd defendant who was driving the lorry in the course of his employment under defendants 1 and 3 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry against the 1st respondent’s (plaintiff’s) car which was stationed as aforesaid and caused damage to the head light on the right side, bonnet and radiator gril of the car. Soon after the accident the 2nd defendant admitted to the plaintiff that he was responsible for this negligent act and also requested the plaintiff to have the car repaired in Messrs. T.V.S. and Co., Ltd., and agreed to pay the cost of the repairs. He also executed a letter on 10th February, 1959, to that effect. After effecting the repairs the plaintiff presented the bill to defendants 1 and 3 the owners of the lorry but the latter disowned liability and refused to pay the money. Therefore the plaintiff had to file the present suit not only against the owners of the lorry, defendants 1 and 3, but also against the driver defendant 2 for damages.

The 1st defendant contended that he was not the owner of the lorry but only the 3rd defendant and that the lorry having been taken on hire at the time of the accident by one Subramaniam Chettiar for transporting articles in connection with a marriage in his house the hirer will be liable for any damages and not the owner of the lorry.

The 3rd defendant while admitting that he is owner of the lorry contended that he could not be made liable because he had lent the lorry and the driver temporarily to one Subramaniam Chettiar and the driver was for the time being under the control of Subramaniam Chettiar and the driver must be deemed to be the servant of the man to whom he was lent, although he remained the general servant of the 3rd defendant, and that for any acts done by the 2nd defendant during the course of the particular employment under Subramaniam Chettiar, the 3rd defendant would not be liable. The 3rd defendant also raised the plea of contributory negligence and other defences.

The 2nd defendant driver remained ex parte.

The learned District Munsif found that the 3rd defendant is the owner of the Horry, that the damage was caused due to the negligence of the 2nd defendant, the driver of the lorry, and that the owner of the lorry is responsible for the tortious acts of his driver. He accordingly passed a decree against the defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 220-40 nP.

It is against this decree that the 3rd defendant the owner of the lorry, has preferred this Revision Petition.

The only point that has to be considered in this Revision Petition is whether the 3rd defendant is liable for the damage caused by his driver to the plaintiff’s car. It is the admitted case that the lorry belongs to the 3rd defendant and the 2nd defendant was in his employment at the time of hiring the lorry to one Subramaniam Chettiar for marriage purposes. Since the lorry was lent to some person for marriage purposes, can we say that the driver 2nd defendant continued to be the servant of the owner of the lorry ; or did he become the servant of the person to whom the lorry was lent on hire. It is true that a person can in fact and in law be