R. V. VASANTHAKUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1986 passed in O. S. No. 247 of 1983 by the Court of the First Additional Civil judge, Belgaum, wherein the court of the first instance dismissed the suit. ( 2 ) A few facts to briefly state are : The parties are described in their original ranks. As against the decree in O. S. No. 247of 1983, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal and defendants have filed their cross-objections, as such it is proposed to pass the following judgment. Plaintiff Naganagouda Veeranagouda Patil filed a suit numbered as O. S. No. 247 of 1983, on the file of the Civil Judge, Belgaum against the defendants who ar'e legal representatives of one deceased Basappa Balappa Kagganagi for recovery of Rs. 1,90,000/- the amount being towards compensation for the wrongful detention of a truck bearing Registration No. MYB 6008, the basis of the claim being restricted to for a period of two years that is from 4-9-1981 to 4- 9-1983. ( 3 ) IT is seen from the records that earlier to filing of the above original suit, plaintiff had filed another original suit numbered as O. S. No. 22 of 1975, on the file of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, against Basappa Balappa Kagganagi for possession of lorry bearing No. MYW 6008 and also for mesne profits. The above original suit proceedings was contested by Basappa Balappa Kagganagi and the matter was finally decided as between the parties in R. S. A. No. 377 of 1979, on the file of this court (vide Ex. P. 13 ). It is also seen from the records that Basappa balappa Kagganagi died during the proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record in the above regular second appeal proceedings. This court in the above regular second appeal while dismissing the appeal has observed, the relevant portion being:"that being so as rightly held by the courts below, though for different reasons the seizure and detention of the truck by the defendant is illegal and unauthorised. No title to the truck is ever vested in the defendant this retention of it is unlawful. Hence the courts below were perfectly justified in passing a decfee for possession of the truck in favour of the plaintiff. I have no reasons to interfere. No title to the truck is ever vested in the defendant this retention of it is unlawful. Hence the courts below were perfectly justified in passing a decfee for possession of the truck in favour of the plaintiff. I have no reasons to interfere. "the above regular second appeal was dismissed on 4-9-1981 and the same has become final as between the parties. From the records of the regular second appeal proceedings, it is to be noted that one Commissioner by name Chamanlal d. Shah, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Automobile and marine was appointed by the court to submit his valuation report of vehicle No. MYW 6008 and on 10-7- 1980 he has filed the report before the court. Commissioner has observed in his report regarding the condition of the vehicle as follows:"visibly it seems vehicle is kept therein open air without any shed during last more than 10 years corrosion started most of the parts found fault of muck and mud. Many parts missing". He has also opined that a sum of Rs. 9q,194/- (ninety thousand and one ninety four) (on as is where is condition) being necessary for making the vehicle roadworthy. "it is not in dispute that the vehicle was taken from the possession of the plaintiff by Basappa Balappa Kagganagi in the year 1971 and in pursuance of the decree passed by this court in R. S. A No. 377 of 1979, the plaintiff has sued out execution proceedings and the execution proceedings being numbered as Ex. 478 of 1978 and it is learnt that the same is pending consideration. ( 4 ) THIS appeal arises out of second round litigation as between the parties. In O. S. No. 247 of 1983, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 and has got 13 documents marked as Exhibits P. 1 to P. 13 and the defendants have not adduced any evidence. The trial court has framed the following issues:"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the possession of the truck by the defendants has become unlawful after 4-9-1981? 2) Whether he further proves that he could have earned a minimum of rs. 8,000/- p. m. and as such he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- for the period from 4-9-1981 to 4-9-1983 with interest @ Rs. 15/- p. a. ? 2) Whether he further proves that he could have earned a minimum of rs. 8,000/- p. m. and as such he is entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- for the period from 4-9-1981 to 4-9-1983 with interest @ Rs. 15/- p. a. ? 3) Whether defendants prove that the suit is hopelessly barred by lime? 4) Whether the suit is hit by the principle of res judicata in view of the decision in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 (as modified by I appellate court and confirmed by H. C.)? 5) Whether the defendants prove that the decretal debt was for illegal purposes and the deceased Basappa had no authority to impose the risk and liability on them and that therefore they are not bound by the decree in r. A. No. 9 of 1978? 6) Whether they further prove that the plaintiff has filed a false and vexatious suit to his own knowledge and as such they are entitled to compensatory costs of Rs. 3,000/-? 7) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? 8) What decree or order? additional issue: 9) Whether the present is barred by Order II, Rule 2, C. P. C. in view of the former suit No. 22 of 1975 of this court?" ( 5 ) THE triai court has recorded findings in the negative on all the issues exceptissue No. 3 and has dismissed the suit. Issue No. 3 relates to the question of the suit as being barred by period of limitation. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 20-7-1983 and has sought reliefs in the following. The relevant being:"a) a decree for compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/ -. b) Interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till realisation awarded. c) xxx xxx xxx d) xxx xxx xxx. " ( 6 ) THE defendants have admitted the fact that late Basappa Balappa Kag-ganagi having taucn possession of the vehicle from the plaintiff on 13-5-1970. In the written statement defendants in para 1 have stated:"it is true as alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff has been held to be the owner of the motor truck bearing No. MYW 6008 (hereinafter referred to as 'truck') that late Basappa had wrongfully taken possession of the truck from the plaintiff on 13-5-1970. In the written statement defendants in para 1 have stated:"it is true as alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint that the plaintiff has been held to be the owner of the motor truck bearing No. MYW 6008 (hereinafter referred to as 'truck') that late Basappa had wrongfully taken possession of the truck from the plaintiff on 13-5-1970. "what is to be seen from the evidence pn record is that vehicle No. MYW 6008 is still in possession of the defendants, as. 'oil this date and decree passed by this court in R. S. A. No. 377 of 1979 is still to be satisfied. ( 7 ) THE defendants while contesting the suit have raised the following pointsfor consideration:1) That the suit claim as being barred-fey period of limitation in view of the cause of action having arisen on 13-5-1970 when the vehicle was wrongfully detained by deceased -Basappa?2) That the suit being barred by Order 11, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure since plaintiff relinquished the suit claim in previous suit No. 22 of 1975 and the cause of action in previous suit No. 22 of 1975 and o. S. No. 247 of 1983 as in substance identical?3) That the plaintiffs suit as being barred by principles of res judicaiat4) That the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment since offer of redelivery of the vehicle or sale of the same was not accepted by the plaintiff?5) That the transaction of deceased Basappa as being Avyawarika the decree in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 as being not binding?relevant assessment of evidence on record for, adjudication of subject-matter of the suit is that the plaintiff has deposed that the truck in question was in good condition and that it was fetching monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- excluding expenses and that his suit claim of Rs. 1,90,000/- as being based on the above said monthly income for tiie periods commencing from 4-9-1981 to 4-9-1983. Further, in the cross-examination, the defendants have suggested that the plaintiff himself having deposed in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 regarding the daily income being at Rs. 50 to 70/- during rainy season and Rs. 140/- during summer season from the use of aforesaid truck. The plaintiff also has deposed that he was using the truck for transport business. Further, in the cross-examination, the defendants have suggested that the plaintiff himself having deposed in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 regarding the daily income being at Rs. 50 to 70/- during rainy season and Rs. 140/- during summer season from the use of aforesaid truck. The plaintiff also has deposed that he was using the truck for transport business. ( 8 ) ONE All Bax who is an auto consultant examined as P. W. 2 has stated that in general the average monthly income from transport business would come to rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- which it is to be stated is only an estimate based on guess work and the same is not supported by any other data. Further, he has stated that average expenses of truck including the expenses on all heads would be Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- and that every year operator has to deposit a sum of rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- towards permit fee. P. W. 2 has stated that average income from the use of a truck would be Rs. 8,000/ -. Further, he has stated that average expenses of a truck including expenses on all heads would come to Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/ -. P. W. 2 has spoken that one has to spend Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per year towards permit and another sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards tyre and tubes for every period of six months. ( 9 ) EVEN if maximum of Rs. 6,000/- is taken into consideration, the total yearly expenses would work out to Rs. 72,000/ -. If admitted income as stated by the plaintiff is taken at Rs. 8,000/- per montu the total yearly income would work ofct to RS. 96,000/- which is however subject to the deduction of Rs. 72,000/- spe;iit towards expenses on all heads. Total net income would work out to (Rs. 96,000- 72,000/-) Rs. 24,000/- per year. ? ( 10 ) TO, cross-check the above income, one has to look into the other evidence given by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 wherein it is suggested that he has deposed that the daily income from the truck at Rs. 80-100 during rainy seasttn and Rs. 140/- during summer season. However, the above figures are approximate and guesswork. For purpose of cross-checking, the evidence of P,w. 2, if Rs. 80-100 during rainy seasttn and Rs. 140/- during summer season. However, the above figures are approximate and guesswork. For purpose of cross-checking, the evidence of P,w. 2, if Rs. 70/- is taken as the daily net income from the use of truck the average yearly income would work out to Rs. 25,200/- per year, rounded off to Rs. 25,000/ -. As such by having in view of the evidentiary value adduced by the plaintiff and in the absence of either any other positive evidence or rebuttal evidence, it is just and proper to assess the loss of income for a period of two years at Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages for the wrongful detention of the vehicle. Having quantified damages at Rs. 50,000/- the only other questions that requires for consideration is whether the suit is barred by period of limitation and the same is barred by virtue of Order 2, Rule 2 and Section 11 of CPC. ( 11 ) IT is to be stated that the cause of action as set up by the plaintiff is the date when he was declared as the owner of the truck, that is when this court in r. S. A. No. 377 of 1979 on 4-9-1981 declared the plaintiff as being the owner of the truck and he being entitled to possession of the same. As such, the plaintiff would be entitled to damages for wrongful detention of the vehicle from that date onwards and the suit is filed on 20-/-1983 which is well within the period of limitation. The trial court did not apply its mind to this aspect of the matter while giving its findings on the issues relating to limitation. What is to be stated is that cause of action is a continuing one and the plaintiff would be entitled to damages as long as the vehicle is in possession of the defendants. Admittedly, defendants have not satisfied the decree passed in R. S. A. No. 377 of 1979 and as -such. they are not entitled to invoke any equitable relief at the hands of the court. Admittedly, defendants have not satisfied the decree passed in R. S. A. No. 377 of 1979 and as -such. they are not entitled to invoke any equitable relief at the hands of the court. The contention advanced by the defendants that they offered either to deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff or sought plaintiffs consent for the sale of the vehicle through the recovery during the pendency of R. A. No. 9 of 1978, filed by defendants as against the decree passed in O. S. No. 22 of 1975 cannot be taken as a voluntary offer for redelivery since defendants stipulated conditions of regarding redelivery subject to the plaintiffs furnishing security and this it is to be stated that defendants did not intend to satisfy the decree passed in R. S. A. . No, 377 of 1979 after protracted litigation. ( 12 ) THE observation of the trial court that "even assuming that the suit of the plaintiff is within time, there is no income to the suit truck from 4-9-1981 to 4- 9-1983, the plaintiff is not entitled for compensation as claimed in any circumstances" it is to be stated is without any legal foundation. The trial Judge obviously is oblivious to legal principles relating to damages arising out of detention. ( 13 ) THE question is what is the plaintiffs loss, what damages he has suffered by the wrongful detention. The plaintiff has three options. A) For value of chattel assessed and damages for its detention. B) For the return of chattel or for recovery of its value as assessed and damages for its detention. C) For return of chattel and damages for its detention. Proper amount of damages is the amount of pecuniary loss which plaintiff has been put to by the defendants conduct. Loss beyond that represented by the market value of the goods may be incurred by the plaintiff through being deprived of use and whether he can recover such consequential loss turns on the principle of remoteness of damage. Proper amount of damages is the amount of pecuniary loss which plaintiff has been put to by the defendants conduct. Loss beyond that represented by the market value of the goods may be incurred by the plaintiff through being deprived of use and whether he can recover such consequential loss turns on the principle of remoteness of damage. Expenditure in hiring a substitute is recoverable less expenses saved in not having to keep maintenance of the vehicle or otherwise plaintiff would be able to recover market rate of hire for the goods between conversion and judgment certainly where plaintiff was in the habit of hiring out the vehicle and possibly where he was not, this loss being ascertained on the analogy of recovery of mesne profits in the case of detention of land. ( 14 ) REASONINGS arrived by the trial court in non-suiting the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that there is no income to the suit truck from 4-9-1981 to 4-9-1983 is fallacious. Defendants who have wrongfully detained cannot avail themselves of hypothesis that plaintiff might not have found hirers and it does not He in their mouth to suggest that the owner might not have either used the vehicle on account of its condition or not found a hirer. The other vested problem that confronts us is whether plaintiff would be entitled to similar measure of damages if the property had not been profit earning or if the plaintiff had never applied for earning of profit. Lord Denning in Strand Electric and Engineering co. Ltd. v Brisford Entertainments Ltd, reported in (1952)2 Q. B. 246, has observed:"it is an action againsl him because he has had the benefit of goods". As such plaintiff is entitled to damages for the wrongful detention. "the relevant paras in the cited decision are:"if a wrongdoer has made use of goods for his own purposes, then he must pay a reasonable hire for them, even though the owner has in fact suffered no loss. It may be that the owner would not have used the goods himself, or that he had a substitute readily available, which he used without extra eost to himself. Nevertheless the owner is entitled to a reasonable hire. It may be that the owner would not have used the goods himself, or that he had a substitute readily available, which he used without extra eost to himself. Nevertheless the owner is entitled to a reasonable hire. If the wrongdoer had asked the owner for permission to use the goods, the owner would be entitled to ask for a reasonable remuneration as the price of his permission. The wrongdoer cannot be better off because he did not ask permission. He cannot be better off by doing wrong than he would be by doing right. He must therefore pay a reasonable hire. This will cover, of course, the wear and tear which is ordinarily included in a hiring charge; but for any further damage the wrongdoer must pay extra. I do not mean to suggest that an owner who has suffered greater loss will not be able to recover it. Suppose that a man used a ear in his business, and owing to its detention he had io hire a substitute at an increased eosi, he would clearly be able to recover the eost of the substitute. "even in cases where defendants offer plaintiff to accept rcdclivcry of goods at any lime before action has proceeded to judgment that docs not by itself go to bar action but goes only in reduction or mitigation of damages and thus the plaintiff may proceed for damages resulting from his being out of possession of goods and may succeed in recovery of nominal damages. This being the position, plea put forward by the defendants that they offered rcdclivery and claim of the plaintiff to be non-suited cannot be accepted that too when it was conditional. In the present case, the defendants have persisted in retaining the goods long after a reasonable time has expired and that too after this court declared the plaintiff as being the owner and entitled to possession. In the present case, the defendants have persisted in retaining the goods long after a reasonable time has expired and that too after this court declared the plaintiff as being the owner and entitled to possession. ( 15 ) WE are of the view that damages have to be awarded by way of monetary compensation for loss or losses which plaintiff has actually sustained and measure of damages awarded on this basis may vary according to individual circumstances of any particular case and we hold that it is for the plaintiff to prove what loss if any he has suffered by reason of tort and when as here the effect of tort is potentially interference and that he has suffered quantifiable loss by reason of it. By way of analogy, the rule that a wrongdoer who keeps the owner out of his land, must pay a fair rental value for it, even though the owner would not have been able to use it himself or to let it to any one else may be made applicable to cases of detention of goods. ( 16 ) DEFENDANTS in this case have not chosen to adduce any rebuttal evidence for the reasons best known to them, and as such on the meagre evidence available we have assessed the damages having in view if the evidence on record. We are of the view that sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be adequate monetary compensation for the loss, the plaintiff has sustained for the wrongful detention of his vehicle by defendants. Since we have come to the conclusion that cause of action as being continuing and defendants as being accountable for every day detention which is wrongful perse, the question of principles ofres judicata and also applicability of Order 2, Rule 2 of C. P. C. , would not arise in the circumstances of the case. ( 17 ) FOR the above reasons, the findings given by the trial court on all issues are hereby set aside. It is made clear that the plaintiff succeeds only to a sum of rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) towards damages. Defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to the plaintiff from out of the estate of deceased-Basappa Balappa Kagganagi together with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) towards damages. Defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to the plaintiff from out of the estate of deceased-Basappa Balappa Kagganagi together with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Due to the protracted litigation, defendants are further directed to pay costs of this appeal and this regular first appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent mentioned above and cross-objection is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .