Short Note : 1. On 15th November 1963 at 1-15 a.m. there was an accident in which railway engine No 543 collided with bus MPV 292 while crossing gate No. 194 between Piplani and Khirkiya. The bus was owned by a partnership firm Syed Ibadat Ali and Co. The firm instituted the suit claiming Rs. 71,400 as damages against the Union of India. The learned First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, who tried the suit held that the Railway Administration was negligent and therefore, the Union of India was liable to pay the damages. As the bus was damaged beyond repairs and was a total loss, the Additional District Judge allowed as damages Rs. 13,850, of being the market value of the damaged bus, Rs. 500 was also allowed for the loss of tools and petromax which were in the bus, Rs. 110 was further allowed as notice and correspondence charges. Thus in all the plaintiff's suit' was decreed for a sum of Rs. 14,460. In the appeal the plaintiff-appellant claimed that the damages be enhanced to the extent of Rs. 4,913. 2. Held: The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that a sum of Rs. 2,000 ought to have been allowed by the Court below for loss of income because the plaintiff could not procure a new bus for a period of two months. The damaged bus was a sort of a relieving bus and was not regularly running on any route. The bus was used on occassions when other buses which were running regularly on the route for which the plaintiff held permits, failed or were not available. There is also no evidence as to what was the actual profit which the plaintiff used to make on this bus. In the circumstances, it is not possible to decree a sum of Rs. 2,000 on account of loss of income for the period during which the plaintiff was unable to procure any bus. Never-the-less, it is dear that the damaged bus, which was used as a spare bus, was necessary for the business of the plaintiff. It was for this reason that another bus had to be purchased by the plaintiff. Naturally it took about two months before the plaintiff could procure any bus. Never-the-less, it is dear that the damaged bus, which was used as a spare bus, was necessary for the business of the plaintiff. It was for this reason that another bus had to be purchased by the plaintiff. Naturally it took about two months before the plaintiff could procure any bus. During this period of two months, the plaintiff was deprived of the use of the spare bus because of the accident The plaintiff is, therefore. entitled to damages for this loss of use because it flowed directly from the accident. Winfield on Torts, 9th Edition pages 593 and 594 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.