Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S. 405/85 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the judgment in O.S. No. 4476/81 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. 2. Short facts are: The respondent, a practising advocate at Madras in City Civil Court, has filed the suit against the revision petitioner Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. for damages for the inconvenience caused and for expenses on the ground that on 20.6.1981, at about 9.35 am he boarded the Express Bus in Route No. 21 belonging to the revision petitioner for travel to the High Court after purchasing the ticket thereof but it was detained near Q.M.C. bus stop and then taken to Royapettah police station and he was asked to get down there and consequently he could not reach the courts in time and attend his work. The claim was resisted by the revision petitioner, alleging that tickets were checked at Q.M.C. but stands. At that time two passengers refused to show their tickets. So arrangement was made for taking the passengers by a spare bus. Police came to the scene and directed that this bus should be taken to Royapettah police station and was taken there and complaint was given and thus the bus was detained in two places due to reasons which are justified and hence they are not liable to pay any damages. After elaborate trial, the learned trial Judge had disbelieved the revision petitioners case that spare bus was arranged for taking the passengers and has also not accepted the case that on the instructions from police, the bus was taken to Royapettah police station and has awarded damages as prayed for. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the defendant in the trial court has come forward with this revision petition. 3. Mr. R. Subbiah, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that detaining of the bus at Q.M.C. bus stop was for a routine check and further detention was only due to the non-cooperative attitude of two passengers who refused to show their tickets to the checking staff and consequent instructions by the police to take the bus to the Royapettah police station. He would further submit that in as much as alternative arrangement was made for taking the passengers from Q.M.C. bus stop to the destination, there was no cause for claiming damages. He would further submit that in any case, the damages claimed and awarded was excessive and that all the cases in which the plaintiff had appeared as a counsel were adjourned and none of the cases was dismissed. I have heard Mr. S. Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. It is not in dispute that plaintiff boarded the Express Bus in Route No. 21 belonging to the defendant at Mylapore to go to the High Court. It is also not in dispute that bus was stopped at Q.M.C. bus stop. It is the case of the revision petitioner that when checking staff of the defendant checked the tickets of the passengers in that bus, two passengers refused to show their tickets and quarrel arose and in such circumstances, the police also came to the spot and they directed the bus to be taken to the Royapettah police station and alternative arrangement was made by bringing spare bus to Q.M.C. us stop for the passengers to continue their trip to their destination. Both the courts below have not accepted the case of the defendant that a spare bus was Drought to Q.M.C. bus stop for the passengers to continue their trip to their destination. In case such alternative arrangements were made and spare bus was brought to Q.M.C. bus stop, definitely they must have Been records to evidence the same with the defendant Corporation. No record whatsoever was filed in the trial Court and as such the findings of the courts below not accepting the defendants case that a spare bus brought to Q.M.C. bus stop as an alternative arrangement is correct. Regarding the defendants further case that on instructions from the police the bus was taken to Royapettah police station also, there is no acceptable evidence, and the courts below were not able to accept it. It is relevant to note that if complaint has been given in Royapettah police station as has been claimed by the defendant, there must be some record in the police station to evidence the same. It is relevant to note that if complaint has been given in Royapettah police station as has been claimed by the defendant, there must be some record in the police station to evidence the same. But no such record was filed on the side of the defendant to substantiate this claim. In the absence of proof of any of those factors and in view of the admitted fact that bus was stopped at the Q.M.C. bus stop and then taken to Royapettah police station instead of to its terminus viz. Parrys Corner, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. 5. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had four cases on that day in various courts and those cases were adjourned. If only the plaintiff had been in time, he would have been present in the courts and made appropriate representations. That was not possibly by him because of the fault on the part of the defendant to take the bus to the terminus in the normal course. Mr. Subbiah, would submit that because all the cases were not dismissed and all the cases were adjourned, no damage was caused to the plaintiff. I am unable to accept this submission for the reason that advocate is expected to be present when the case in which he appears was called in court and make representation. He was not able to perform the duty on that day. No doubt cases were adjourned. But yet he could not do his duty as an advocate by appearing for those parties. In such circumstances, damages ought to be awarded. 6. With regard to the quantum of damages, Mr. Balasubramanian would point out that in para 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the particulars of damages suffered by him item by item and had given the total figure at Rs. 1,066-35. In the written statement, there is no demur that damages claimed was excessive. It is only stated in para 12 of the written statement that plaintiff is bent upon making an unlawful claim in respect of an incident which took place beyond the control of the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff cannot be characterised as a claim for an unlawful gain. Beyond that, in the written statement, there is no plea that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint was excessive. The claim of the plaintiff cannot be characterised as a claim for an unlawful gain. Beyond that, in the written statement, there is no plea that the quantum of damages claimed in the plaint was excessive. When that was not disputed, it cannot be contended that the damages awarded was excessive. Mr. Balasubramanian would rely upon Gambhirmull v. Indian Bank Ltd. In that case, the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court has laid as follows: “The fact that damages are difficult to estimate and cannot be assessed with certainty or precision does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages for his breach of duly, and is no ground for awarding only nominal damages.” Here the damages claimed is only nominal viz., Rs. 1,000/-. The other part of the claim is with regard to the expenses incurred. So I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Subbiah that the plaintiff had not proved any damages and the damages awarded was excessive. 7. In view of the above, the civil revision petition fails and shall stand dismissed No costs.